Search

Books reviewed in this essay: K.J. Bade and M. Weiner (Eds), Migration Past, Migration Future: Germany and the United States R. Munz and M. Weiner (Eds), Migrants, Refugees, and Foreign Policy: U.S. and German Policies Towards Countries of Origin K. Hailbronner and D.A. Martin (Eds), Immigration Admissions: The Search for Workable Policies in Germany and the United States K. Hailbronner, D.A. Martin and H. Motomura (Eds), Immigration Controls: The Search for Workable Policies in Germany and the United States P. Schuck and R. Munz (Eds), Paths to Inclusion: The Integration of Migrants in the United States and Germany

This article describes and reflects upon practical experiences in using simulations to increase the crisis preparedness of policy makers and government agencies in the Netherlands. Basic issues in crisis simulation design are discussed in view of the various functions that simulations may perform in crisis management planning. A concrete example of simulation is provided to explain its design and modus operandi. The article concludes with a number of practical recommendations.

There is a systematic deflation in governmental rhetoric of the developments that call attention to the unequal distribution of goods and services and a systematic inflation of the forms of threat that legitimize and expand authority. The latter are defined as crises, the former as problems. As crises recur and problems persist, so does a governmental dramaturgy of coping. (Edelman, 1977: 49) This article proposes a more power-critical approach to the analysis of crisis management and, in this respect, explores the possible contribution of research on political and organizational symbolism. Viewed in terms of symbolic action, attention is drawn to the opportunity spaces that crises entail for policy makers and other crisis actors. To exploit these, it is important for decision elites to influence collective definitions of the situation in such a way as to highlight preferred courses of action and to selectively obscure alternative interpretations. Three types of symbolic ‘crisis handling devices’ (framing, ritualization and masking) are presented and illustrated. In conclusion, the need for a broader perspective on the nature of the politics of crisis management is emphasised.