The rise of global health crises, such as pandemics, challenge the capacity of local, national and international institutions to effectively respond and coordinate efforts in numerous ways. In an increasingly interconnected world, infectious diseases rapidly spread across borders, outpacing the ability of individual countries to contain them. To address these challenges, governance models that can better respond to global health crises (e.g., Roberts 2020) have been put in place, be it network governance (e.g., Pierre and Peters 2000), participatory governance (e.g., Grote and Gbikpi 2002), interactive governance (e.g., Torfing et al. 2012) or collaborative governance (e.g., Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). Despite of some differences in nuances they all emphasize stakeholder involvement, cooperation, and dialogue.

This paper introduces the concept of emergent governance that refers to governance that transcends traditional top-down bureaucratic models and embraces a fluid, bottom-up approach that is adaptive, responsive, and collaborative. Crisis governance also requires increasingly agile and adaptable approaches. Agility reflects the practices and methods needed for creating rapid responses, which is central to crisis governance. It is most effective in responding to uncertainties that arise from the environment, emphasizing the ability to handle complexity. In contrast, adaptation entails a more structured approach that involves an active role by the key actors in driving change. It enhances capacity to deal with change while protecting the environment from instability (Janssen & van der Voort 2016).

Theoretically, this paper focuses on global health governance (i.e. metagovernance) as an emergent response to global pandemics. There are structural limitations to the pandemic response that reframe the global health governance landscape. While there is growing recognition that pandemics transcend national boundaries, coordinating the strategies and actions of sovereign states has remained a problem (Peters et al. 2022). From strengthening global public health during and after the pandemic to coordinating and directing international responses to pandemics, this article applies the emergent global governance framework to examine these two different global pandemics through agile and adaptive forms of governance.

Empirically this paper focuses on two different modes of governance in trying to construct responses to two different types of health crises: COVID-19 as a fast-spreading global pandemic and a slowly emerging, hidden antimicrobial resistance pandemic. The description of the cases aims to demonstrate the use of agile and adaptive modes of governance that try to respond to uncertainty and changes in the environment rather than just as a response to health crises.

This paper explores the governance of complex, transboundary crises, specifically focusing on citizens' perception of antimicrobial and antibiotic resistance (AMR). AMR refers to bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotic drugs, leading to the persistence, multiplication, and exacerbation of illnesses. Recognized as a global health crisis by the World Health Organization, AMR is characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity, making it challenging to manage. Effective crisis management by public sector organizations requires both governance capacity and governance legitimacy. AMR can also be considered an advocacy crisis since it has received limited public attention despite its imminent threat. Citizens lack knowledge about AMR, and it has not been extensively discussed in public debates. Health agencies have primarily driven the discourse, but translating scientific information to the public sphere has proven difficult.

Our main research question is: What is the Norwegian citizens’ perception of the AMR crisis and how does it vary with trust relations, fear factors, and knowledge? The answer to this question can provide valuable insights for policymakers and influence crisis management strategies by public authorities.

The paper presents the AMR problem more closely and looks at how AMR as a health crisis has been approached by Norwegian authorities. By emphasizing the public's perception and awareness of the crisis, the paper highlights the importance of governance legitimacy for effective crisis management. The study utilizes data from the Norwegian Citizen Panel (NCP), an online panel survey conducted by the University of Bergen, with a sample size of approximately 1,000. It explores the relationship between trust in crisis management authorities and concerns about the declining effectiveness of antibiotics. Additionally, it investigates how levels of social trust and fear, related to the severity or proximity of the threat, influence citizens' worriedness. The impact of knowledge on the situation is also examined, based on the assumption that informed assessments and decisions can help individuals navigate uncertainty.

The results indicate that Norwegian citizens are aware of the seriousness of AMR and perceive it as a significant threat to themselves, the country, and the world. They express concerns about the loss of antibiotic effectiveness. Regression analysis investigates factors influencing these perceptions, revealing that worriedness about AMR is more connected to fear of other contemporary transboundary crises rather than personal risk. Generalized trust, however, is not associated with worriedness. Proximity to other crises emerges as the primary explanatory factor, surpassing severity, trust, and knowledge concerning antibiotics. This "distant" assessment by Norwegian citizens enables authorities to communicate evidence-based information about AMR without inducing excessive anxiety and fear. Moreover, policy and decision-making related to the crisis can consider long-term perspectives, allowing for thoughtful planning and action. Although action is still necessary, the crisis does not require immediate, impulsive responses from public sector organisations like more immediate crises do.

Policy capacity plays a pivotal role in shaping the extent of global governmental responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. While scholars have primarily examined this phenomenon through individual case studies, focusing on demographic variables that influence governments' Covid-19 responses, little understanding exists regarding how existing policy capacities (systemic, bureaucratic, and steering) have either constrained or empowered governments to navigate the pandemic diversely. To address this gap, our study focuses on the worldwide patterns of school closures and reo-penings during Covid-19. Utilising configurational analysis on data from 110 countries, we reveal that factors such as deficient bureaucratic quality, flawed governmental leadership, and heightened political polarisation serve as quasi-sufficient conditions for longer school closures, while their significant presence leads to extended periods of schools remaining open. The research is supported by detailed case studies of the US, Colombia, Israel, and South Korea, elucidating diverse policy trajectories and combinations influencing prolonged closures or swift re-openings.