of processes and actors exist for specific sectors or issues. In other words, one can delineate the policy sub-system concerned with emergency management, as opposed to public health policy (but also recognize likely overlaps and links).
• Private or community organizations also develop, communicate and seek to implement policies; however, the focus here is on public policy, which may nonetheless reflect or even be dictated by the policy positions or proposals of non-government organizations. The crucial difference is that public policies are enabled by the democratic legitimacy and legal authority of government.
• Policy style describes the general nature of policy-making in a jurisdiction, govern- ment or political system, ranging from legally based, coercive styles dominated by government, to ‘corporatist’ traditions where policy is negotiated with major interest groups, to a reliance on local communities. Policy styles vary from coun- try to country, and within countries over time as conditions and social values change or as administrations of a different political persuasion win government.
A single government or society may also employ different styles according to the nature of issues faced, such as in the case of a rapidly emerging threat.
• Policy programmes are specified and substantial manifestations of a policy, comprising elements of implementation, as well as of intent. Beneath this level, for an applied policy, there will be specific and practical projects. For example, a policy on community flood preparedness might include a programme of community-based flood protection and evacuation plans, and within that programme numerous discrete projects, implementing the programme in differ- ent locations.
• Public policies are influenced and formulated by multiple policy actors as indi- viduals and in organized groups, including politicians, government officials, NGOs, lobbyists and the media. In a democratic system, all voters have some degree of influence; however, surrounding an issue there will be a discernible policy community, comprising those who are actively involved in policy discus- sion. The relative power and influence of members of the policy community varies widely. Within this, a smaller policy network will have responsibility for policy formulation and implementation, sharing a reasonably coherent set of beliefs and aspirations.
• Within a policy network or sub-system, there are those termed ‘policy- or deci- sion-makers’ – this can be an imprecise term. Here, policy- or decision-makers are those with responsible authority: the legal competence and mandate within the relevant jurisdiction (nation, state or province, local government area, etc.) to make formal policy decisions regarding the matter at hand. The responsible authority may be an individual (e.g. minister or secretary, senior official with delegated authority from government, or a court) or an organization (such as a cabinet, statutory body, industry association, firm or community organization).
In any significant policy formulation and implementation exercise, more than one responsible authority will likely be involved, making multiple formal deci- sions on different aspects of the policy response.
• Policy instruments are the ‘tools’ used by governments in partnership with other players to implement policies and achieve policy goals – for example, a
regulation, education campaign, tax, intergovernmental agreement or assess- ment procedure.
• Management here refers to actions taken ‘on the ground’ in implementing a policy instrument and undertaking physical actions. Thus, policy sets the direction, whereas management does things to achieve that direction. Managers and policy-makers may be the same individuals or in the same organization, or may be separate. For example, central government might develop a legally based policy on hazard mapping and preparedness, and a local authority or commu- nity-based emergency group may implement this at a local level. Management regimes refer to multiple related components through which management actions take place, including regulations, agencies and official monitoring programmes, and funding.
In this book, we will be as consistent as possible with these definitions, acknowledging, however, that the boundaries between both the terms and realities they represent are not always clear, For example, what should strictly be termed an organization may, in a particular context, have the widespread recognition, influence and longevity (and, thus, the ongoing influence on human behaviour) to be thought of as an institution. Likewise, neat divides between the general community, policy community and policy network may not exist. Nonetheless, greater rather than less clarity in terminology assists description, analysis and prescription of ‘policy’. The following example, fictional and inevitably somewhat awkward, puts the terms into context:
In line with the State Emergency Plan (policy) and regulations under the Emergencies Act 1999 (legislative policy instrument) enabling the State Emergency Management Procedures (related policy instrument), the Emergency Services Authority and State Department of Forests (government organizations) ordered controlled burning (management action) in the state-owned Great Northern Forest. The fire crossed containment lines and damaged assets belonging to adjacent landholders, who took legal action arguing negligence (a legal doctrine within the institution of the common law) in the district court (organization manifesting that institution). Damages were awarded against the agencies, as represented in the proceedings by their chief executive officers (responsible authorities). On advice from the Emergency Services Authority, an independent inquiry, submissions from interested parties (policy community) and legal advice (parts of the policy process), a government taskforce (policy network) developed a new policy of negotiated regional fuel-reduction burning plans, reflecting a shift from a top-down regulatory style to an inclusive, cooperative policy style.
This indicates the complexity of what lies beneath the terms ‘policy’ and ‘institution’, particularly when we recall that the players and context of policy processes vary widely across jurisdictions, time and issues. The stronger focus on emergency management than on the policy settings that shape such management – discussed in Chapter 1 – is emphasized in this example as necessarily limited (albeit very important) within the array of equally important concepts and entities that shape societal responses to emergencies and disasters. Making sense of such complexity
has challenged policy theorists and practitioners for decades. The next section distils – and sharply summarizes – some key ideas from that body of theory and practice.