Conference Agenda

Creeping crises like the climate change crisis or the antimicrobial resistance crisis constitute major societal challenges of our time (Nolte & Lindenmeier 2023). One notable aspect of these crises is the uncertainty surrounding the responsibility for managing them. The public generally expects the government or public sector leaders to handle the emerging threat and implement a response (Ansell et al. 2010). However, unlike acute crises, creeping crises lack a universally accepted recognition as risks or crises, meaning that defined crisis ownership is lacking and thus, an organized response unlikely (Boin et al. 2020). Therefore, establishing crisis ownership is critical for proactively addressing and successfully managing creeping crises in their incubation stage (Boin et al. 2021).

However, looking at extant literature, crisis ownership presents as an under-researched topic, not only in Public Administration, but also in research on crisis management and leadership (Boin et al. 2021, Ansell et al. 2010). Therefore, it is crucial to gain more knowledge on it. In addition, no agreed-upon definition of crisis ownership exists, further complicating the exploration of the topic (Boin et al. 2020). Consequently, there exists a need to clarify and define the concept. Furthermore, the research focus has often been placed on exploring the handling of sudden, acute crises (Nolte & Lindemeier 2023), leaving many open questions regarding the management of creeping crises (Mascio et al. 2020). Thus, this paper aims to fill these research gaps by answering the following research question: What determines public sector leaders’ crisis ownership in the context of a creeping crisis in its incubation phase?

By answering this research question, we aim to make a conceptual as well as empirical contribution to the literature. Furthermore, by analyzing the crisis ownership of public sector leaders, namely administrative and political leaders, we will also be able to analyze the differences regarding the determinants of crisis ownership between the two.

The theoretical framework of this paper builds on the concept of crisis ownership, as well as on creeping crises. The latter is defined by Boin and colleagues (2020, p.122) as “a threat to widely shared societal values or sustaining systems that evolves over time and space, is foreshadowed by precursor events, subject to varying degrees of political and/or societal attention, and impartially or insufficiently addressed by authorities.” This definition highlights the importance of the incubation phase of the crisis as well as the uncertainty regarding its ownership.

The concept of crisis ownership has most prominently been described in recent research by Boin and colleagues (2020, 2021), and draws on the concepts of responsibility and accountability of public leaders in crisis. Still, to date, no agreed-upon conceptualization of crisis ownership exists. However, the general concept of ownership constitutes a frequently researched topic in disciplines such as Psychology or Political Science and thus, to create a comprehensive definition of the concept of crisis ownership, we will further draw on the concepts of psychological ownership (Morewedge 2021), as well as issue ownership (Petrocik 1996). The above-mentioned concepts lead to our working definition of crisis ownership as 1) the formal and cognitive recognition of an emerging threat as a societal crisis, 2) which leads to decision-making power and a formal-legal output, 3) as well as responsibility for the actions taken to handle the crisis.

Furthermore, regarding crisis ownership and its determinants, it can be assumed that characteristics of the crisis or of the emerging threat, such as its complexity or its salience, will determine public leaders’ decision to take ownership (Brändström & Kuipers 2003). We also assume that public leader’s personal identification with the crisis will influence their decision to take crisis ownership, which is suggested in research on psychological ownership (Pickford et al. 2016). Another aspect, which is considered of relevance to answer our research question, is the relationship between administrative and political leaders (Carelli & Pierre 2024) and its influence on crisis ownership. To further explore this notion, we will draw on the theory of administrative discretion power (Bolgherini 2016, Calvert et al. 1989). Moreover, the relationship between the national and subnational levels of government are assumed to play a role in the process of crisis ownership, as especially in a federal system like Switzerland, the cantons and its public actors have various degrees of autonomy (Ritz et al. 2021).

To answer the research question, a qualitative single case study design will be applied (Yin 2014). As extant research on the topic of crisis ownership presents as limited, complicating the formulation of specific hypotheses, a qualitative explorative design presents as suitable to gain new insights on this phenomenon. In addition, the nature of our research question demands an approach that allows an in-depth investigation of the process of ownership, tracing the different determinants and influencing factors; thus, an explorative case study is especially suitable (Yin 2014).

Our case of analysis constitutes the antimicrobial resistance crisis (AMR) in Switzerland, which is often described as the most significant public health crisis of the coming years (WHO 2023). AMR also meets all the criteria of a creeping crisis (Boin et al. 2020) and thus, offers itself as suitable case for exploration. The focus of our case study is the exploration of crisis ownership in the public sector. Furthermore, to explore the relationships between political and administrative actors as well as between the national and subnational level (cantons), within-case analysis will be applied (Goertz & Mahoney 2012).

The data for this paper will be collected through document analysis, and semi-structured interviews with leaders and experts in public health from the cantonal or federal administration of Switzerland. In a next step, the interviews will be transcribed and coded. As the theory regarding crisis ownership presents as not advanced, an inductive coding approach will be applied (Ashworth et al. 2019).

The first results of this qualitative study will be available at the conference, as well as an elaborated conceptual framework of crisis ownership.

Despite increased political interest in the whole-of-society approach to security, few defense studies have identified total defense, including the so-called will to defend, as their primary research focus. This leaves the complicated nature of resilience underexplored. Academic literature often fails to address the complexities of mobilizing a vast range of public- and private-sector individuals to perform emergency services during crises and wars – an issue that is of significant concern to security planners and policymakers. This article seeks to fill that gap through a qualitative thematic analysis of 30 semi-structured interviews with leaders in public and private organizations that form a governance network for crisis management. The interview analysis highlights coordination and cooperation challenges in total defense, potentially affecting the effective delivery of public services by public and private organizations during extreme crises. In this paper, I explore how joint public-private service delivery can effectively address these challenges by adopting a Promethean approach.