Alexa Lenz

Crises often call for swift and far-reaching government action that depends on broad public acceptance to be effective. While political disagreement is commonly seen as undermining support, its actual impact on public attitudes remains contested. This study examines public opinion during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany – a context that shifted from early cross-party unity to later politicization. Combining original media data on partisan messaging and panel survey data from 2020, we assess how the emergence of partisan criticism shaped public acceptance of pandemic response policies. Although increasing partisan politicization was associated with declining public acceptance of pandemic measures, we find no evidence that this relationship was driven by partisan cue-taking. Instead, citizens adjusted their party preferences rather than their policy views in response to disagreement with their preferred party. These findings highlight the limits of partisan persuasion, and the growing importance of citizens’ own evaluations as elite consensus erodes.

Crises are widely acknowledged as catalysts for policy change. Yet, our understanding of the policy effects of crises remains limited. Why do only some crises lead to major changes, while significant policy changes also occur during seemingly non‐crisis periods? This paper addresses this gap by distinguishing between two critical “components” of crises: objective problem pressures and public perceptions. We argue that these components often co‐occur but may not always align, leading to differing changes in policy outputs. Using migration policy in Switzerland as a crucial case study, we explore fluctuations in both objective metrics and public sentiment over a period of 25 years (1994 to 2019). Our analysis reveals that substantial policy changes typically occur when both components highlight crisis conditions. However, notable policy change can also be triggered by either high objective pressures or strong public perceptions of crisis. These findings highlight the significance of how scholars define and conceptualize crises, as well as the dimensions—whether objective or perceptual—that they use.

During crisis management, public administrators typically adjust bureaucratic rules to become more flexible. In this paper, we go one step further, asking about the factors that explain rule-breaking behavior among public servants during crisis management. We report novel qualitative evidence and findings from a preregistered randomized quasi-experiment surveyed among 448 public servants in Germany. Our findings reveal that bureaucrats’ prosocial attitudes, whether the affected population is part of their in-group and higher levels of red tape affect significantly their willingness to engage in rule-breaking. Effects from decisive leadership are weak and conditional on other explanatory factors. These findings provide valuable insights for theory and practice in crisis and human resource management, demonstrating that organizations have limited leverage in influencing whether their employees engage in rule-breaking behavior, which is, in the main, conditional on individual factors and the characteristics of the crisis.

Bureaucratic overburdening has emerged as an important theme in public policy and administration research. The concept signifies a state where public administrators are overwhelmed with more tasks and responsibilities than they can effectively handle. Researchers attribute this phenomenon to several key factors, such as an increasing assault on the public sector, a growing volume of policies to enforce, and “external” shocks. These studies converge on the perception that the public sector's capacity to effectively implement policies and to address societal problems is progressively diminishing. However, there is a clear knowledge gap regarding the breadth, dynamics, and pervasiveness of this issue, as existing research often narrows its focus on the implementation of specific policies or policy sectors. This paper addresses this research gap by mapping the frequency of bureaucratic overload reports in newspaper articles from Italy, Ireland, and Germany, spanning two decades from 2003 to 2022. In the second step, we describe the drivers of overload that we coded in a random sample of articles. Our research reveals that the overburdening of public administration is indeed an escalating problem resulting from an “explosive” cocktail of external and internal challenges that simultaneously affect public authorities.

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.