Conference Agenda

This paper examines how crises drive changes to ministerial structures across European countries from 1980-2025. While scholarship extensively examines how political dynamics shape administrative structures, we know surprisingly little about crisis-driven ministerial reorganization. We argue that crises affect ministerial structures through two mechanisms: governments may eliminate or modify non-crisis-related ministries to signal crisis prioritization, while simultaneously creating or enhancing crisis-relevant ministries to build response capacity. We test these arguments using original data linking crises to a comprehensive inventory of ministerial changes across European countries. Our analysis reveals [RESULTS TO COME]. These findings contribute to crisis management literature by identifying structural reorganization as a previously overlooked type of crisis-induced reform. We demonstrate how such reorganization serves both symbolic and operational functions during crisis response. Furthermore, we illuminate how crises, as focusing events, drive administrative change, contributing to literature on policy agendas and attention. For public administration scholarship, we provide systematic evidence of the effects of crisis on governmental structures, moving beyond case studies to identify broader patterns.

The paper seeks to understand how creeping crises transform public administrations by examining the effects of the Covid-19 crisis on long-term organisational change in Slovenian state administrative organisations. The analysis is grounded in Nograšek and Vintar’s (2014) adaptation of the Leavitt diamond model, which places technology at the centre of five interrelated organisational elements: technology, people, processes, culture, and structure. This model is particularly appropriate given the literature’s recognition of ICT as a key driver of public administrations' initial responses to the pandemic. To analyse the causal relationships and interdependencies among these elements, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was applied, using data from an international research project conducted in Slovenia and Czechia. While a joint SEM model was developed and tested across both national contexts, this paper focuses exclusively on the Slovenian SEM model and the Slovenian dataset derived from a 2023 survey.

The findings identify crisis-related changes within each organisational element. Within “technology”, key changes include the testing and adoption of new technologies, formal decision-making processes for their implementation, and increased demand for training. Changes within “people” affect the extent, scope, and complexity of work, as well as job responsibilities. The “processes” element refers to the elimination of unnecessary activities, their coordination and sharing across workplaces or departments, increased autonomy of process performers, changes in both vertical and horizontal processes, and new process control systems. Changes featuring “culture” reflect reinforced loyalty and a heightened sense of responsibility for the quality of work, improved cooperation among departments, the dissolution of departmentalisation thinking, and a shift towards a service-oriented culture. Changes in “structure” include increased formalisation and standardisation of tasks and procedures, and growing departmental specialisation.

Additionally, the SEM model clarifies causal interrelations among the organisational elements, thus showing that changes within “technology” and “people” (including their correlation) positively influence “processes”. This highlights that, in times of crisis, the interplay between “technology” and “people” plays a pivotal role in driving organisational change and initiating subsequent transformations in other elements. The SEM model also shows that changes in “technology”, “people”, and “processes” positively affect “culture”. However, “technology” and “people” do not influence “culture” directly; rather, their impact is mediated through “processes”. This indicates that cultural change requires prolonged period of adaptation and internalisation, achieved through the repeated execution of new practices embedded in organisational processes.

Eventually, we conclude that “technology”, “people”, and “processes” affect “structure” indirectly through “culture”, thus explaining over 0.50 variance in “structure”. The combined positive impact of changes in “technology”, “people”, and “processes”—reflected in new behaviours and the internalisation of new attitudes (“culture”)—contributed to the reshaping of organisational structures. This finding is consistent with existing observations that organisational structures tend to remain relatively stable over extended (even crisis) periods.

Hence, this study’s key contribution is the elucidation of organisational change pathways during periods of creeping crisis, using the Covid-19 pandemic in the Slovenian administrative context as a case.

Transboundary crises are seen as an increasing challenge for the public sector. Yet, their defining characteristics remain relatively poorly understood. Building on foundational work, this paper advances the conceptual understanding of transboundary crises by proposing an extended framework that distinguishes three main boundaries: political, institutional, and temporal. In keeping with the subjective crisis perspective that dominates the crisis management literature, we argue that these boundaries are not natural, pre-given or fixed. Instead, these boundaries are conceptual demarcations of important categories upon which crisis managers draw, reflecting how crisis management capacities are organized and embedded within existing governance arrangements. Each of the three transboundary dimensions presents specific challenges for crisis governance, which entail both establishing crisis management capacity and maintaining public legitimacy. By refining the conceptual foundations of transboundary crises and linking them to governance challenges, this study advances both theoretical and practical knowledge in the field of crisis governance.

Transitioning to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions presents a critical challenge, especially to the inherent tensions and entrenched power structures that impede effective climate governance. In this paper, we draw from the works of Sabel and Victor, and advocate for an experimentalist approach to climate governance, which emphasizes continuous learning and adaption. We ask how governance procedures can be designed to facilitate climate governance experimentation and evaluate the climate governance systems in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Our analysis highlights four essential governance processes: Emissions Monitoring, Performance Reporting, Evaluation, and Innovation, each assessed based on their levels of inclusiveness, transparency and routinization. Findings indicate that Denmark’s governance procedures are more conducive to experimentalist governance, which is reflected in their higher scores across all the assessed criteria. Sweden and Norway exhibit lower effectiveness due to issues particularly with inclusivity and transparency. The paper shows that strong governance frameworks may optimize climate action, and we argue for further research to clarify this relationship between governance and emissions reductions. Ultimately, we aim to stimulate discussions on the structural reforms necessary for realizing effective climate governance, setting the stage for future empirical investigations into these vital processes.