Crystal Majors
Response Paper #1
March 12, 2008
Disasters, Politics, and the Policy Process
When it comes to disaster recovery and hazard mitigation, politics is everything. The main goal of any politician is to look after his/her constituents for the “here and now”. Because disasters are not every day events, they become easy to forget until there is another imminent threat. In any event, lack of political support results in failure to implement disaster policies.
Before an issue can be placed on a political agenda, there has to be a strong group of stakeholders supporting it. As Prater and Lindell point out in their article Politics of Hazard Mitigation, having a disaster policy in place is worth nothing without the “right” people involved in the process. These people include civic leaders, organizations like the American Red Cross, elected officials, community residents, and members of the media. The media is extremely important, as these are the people who can draw attention to the issue. Once a disaster has been recognized, policymakers have to be sure that not only their constituents are involved in the process, but they have correctly defined the event. The community must be able to understand the vulnerability and risks of hazards and how the policy will affect them (businesses and residents).
Disasters often become extremely complex and arduous when it comes to preparedness and mitigation; hence, the reluctance in creating an agenda. As Olsen points out, “disasters put novel issues on agendas and generate a new set and number of demands, creating and/or empowering some leaders, while debilitating others” (pg. 272). Political leaders are tasked with explaining or justifying the disaster, which often turns into a messy blame game; sometimes as far reaching as the federal government. Not only are there difficulties in explaining the event, but there are also concerns with overseeing the management of the disaster mitigation, developmental issues regarding preparedness and financial implications that will continue into the future to ensure the community will be prepared for the next disaster. All of which can make the process overwhelming and easy to suppress.
There must also be a clear understanding of the roles of local, state, and federal governments and their relationship with each other. At times when state and local capacities are not adequate, they must seek assistance from the federal government. However, the increase in supplemental funds to communities for disasters has placed a huge financial burden on the federal government, resulting in stricter criteria for administering funds, cutting spending in other programs to offset costs, and creating more debt (Platt).
Once the risk has been recognized, the community and the media attract attention to the issue and political support has been garnered, is that enough to influence the long-term implications of disaster management policy? No. Disasters should not only appear on the political agenda when they arise, but should always be revisited. Shelia Jasanoff (1994) suggests that while complicated issues require lots of time and commitment to find a solution, failure to appear on the political agenda periodically causes them to be forgotten. Thus, disaster policy is important not only for preparedness and mitigation, but also to keep the issue fresh in the minds of those that can implement policy. Emergency management is an area that will always require revisions. The only way for communities to be fully prepared and mitigate disasters is to continuously look for ways to improve disaster policy. The challenge is for political leaders to remember to periodically revisit disaster policy.
Outside reference:
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1994. Learning from Disaster: Risk Management After Bhopal. Philadelphia,
PA. University of Pennsylvania Press, Chapter 5.