The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy
Abstract
What makes a well‐functioning governmental crisis management system, and how can this be studied using an organization theory–based approach? A core argument is that such a system needs both governance capacity and governance legitimacy. Organizational arrangements as well as the legitimacy of government authorities will affect crisis management performance. A central argument is that both structural features and cultural context matter, as does the nature of the crisis. Is it a transboundary crisis? How unique is it, and how much uncertainty is associated with it? The arguments are substantiated with empirical examples and supported by a literature synthesis, focusing on public administration research. A main conclusion is that there is no optimal formula for harmonizing competing interests and tensions or for overcoming uncertainty and ambiguous government structures. Flexibility and adaptation are key assets, which are constrained by the political, administrative, and situational context. Furthermore, a future research agenda is indicated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies
Perry, J., & Kingdon, J. W. (1985) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.2307/3323801 · Cited by 11,225
A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS
HOOD, C. (1991) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x · Cited by 10,159
Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-5387 · Cited by 5,533
Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum015 · Cited by 4,006
Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
Holsti, O. R., & Allison, G. T. (1972) · The Western Political Quarterly · doi:10.2307/446741 · Cited by 3,658
Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?
Scharpf, F. (1999) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.001.0001 · Cited by 3,201
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm
Baumol, W. J., Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1964) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150326 · Cited by 3,010
Metadata
- Authors
- Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-04-17
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 887-897
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2338251753
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 85
- FWCI
- 61.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/puar.12558
- The paper
- Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12558
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.