Managing crises as if no one is watching? Governance dilemmas from a public perspective

Abstract

In the midst of ongoing crises, understanding how citizens perceive administrative crisis management is more relevant than ever. Combining organizational literature with insights from legitimacy research, this article scrutinizes how the public evaluates governance decisions concerning prominent crisis management dilemmas: flexibility versus stability, inclusion versus exclusion, and equity-based versus needs-based resource distribution. The paper argues that flexible, inclusive, and equity-based governance decisions are generally perceived as more legitimate. However, governance decisions are also associated with adverse effects that can mitigate any initially positive effect on legitimacy. The argument is tested in a large-scale randomized survey experiment in the context of a migration crisis, where governance decisions were manipulated. The findings support the expectations for inclusive crisis management and equity-based resource distribution, which are perceived as the most legitimate governance alternatives. Internal adaptations of administrative practices toward more flexible and adaptive solutions, however, are perceived less legitimate than stable governmental action.