Session Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

State Policy Variations in Disaster Governance: Analyzing the Role of Evidence, Emotions, Discretion, and Policy Windows

Friday, November 6, 1:45 to 3:15pm, Property: Boston Marriott Copley Place, Floor: 3rd Floor, Room: Boston University

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

The growing frequency and impact of disasters in the United States have created unique challenges for state governments. Their response to these crises and the implementation of state and federal policies addressing them is driven by various factors, including leadership narratives, the role of evidence and emotions, administrative discretion, policy entrepreneurs, and policy windows. This panel brings together four empirical papers that examine variations in how state and local governments address disasters using different theoretical lenses that encompass the Narrative Policy Framework, the Multiple Streams Approach, emotional labor, and administrative discretion.  The first three papers address health issues, with two focusing on COVID-19 policy responses and one on the mental health and emotional labor of disaster managers. All four papers focus on variations in variations in state and local policies. 

The first paper analyzes narratives about vaccines by governors and public health experts during a sudden-onset disaster, the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on the Narrative Policy Framework and Institutional Theory, the authors posit that governors and public health experts in the United States differ in their use of evidence and emotions in narratives as a result of the institutional contexts in which they operate. Using sentiment analysis and regression models, the analysis and findings demonstrate that institutional roles shape how state policy actors blend evidence with emotional appeals, revealing the strategic nature of narrative construction and the role of context therein.

The second paper also focuses on the response to COVID-19, using the Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) as its theoretical base. This study extends the MSA by viewing policy windows as varying in breadth rather than as a binary condition. This paper uses Qualitative Comparative Analysis to analyze policy variations across 50 states. The contributions are to offer a more nuanced framework for understanding state policy responsiveness under crisis conditions, demonstrate the value of configurational methods, and provide a structured empirical framework for identifying how combinations of public health conditions, governance arrangements, and political environments shape economic recovery trajectories.

The third paper focuses on disaster responses by examining state and local managerial responses and the role of information, and by drawing on a qualitative case study of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina to examine the mental health impacts and emotional labor associated with managing misinformation during crisis response. Using data collected through a series of focus groups with state and local managers and thematic analysis, this paper explores the dynamics of core, yet often overlooked, components of public sector work during crisis conditions.

The fourth paper examines disaster responses to sudden-onset disasters by analyzing the implementation stage of FEMA Public Assistance programs to understand how intergovernmental politics under polarized federalism shapes program delivery outcomes through the mechanism of administrative discretion. Using county-disaster observations, merged with NOAA storm event damage data, American Community Survey socioeconomic indicators, and county-level presidential election returns, the findings show that while objective needs predict funding intensity, political influences can affect implementation processes.

Policy Area

Chair

Discussants

Organizer

Individual Presentations