Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorZaman, Ahmad Wesal
dc.contributor.authorRubin, Olivier
dc.contributor.authorStaupe, Reidar
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-22T13:47:35Z
dc.date.available2024-02-22T13:47:35Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-05
dc.description.abstractThe policy literature has generally conceptualised crises as urgent public threats with clearly demarcated ‘focusing events’. Consequently, most studies have identified the main challenges faced by expert agencies involved in evidence-based policymaking as managing uncertainty, time pressure and communication. However, less focus has been devoted to analysing the concrete challenges faced by expert agencies during creeping crises. Creeping crises are characterised by spatial and temporal fragmentation and elusiveness, which create an additional challenge for expert agencies: placing the crises on the political agenda. Comparing two global creeping crises: climate change (CC) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), this article highlights two distinct strategies for influencing policymaking. The analysis shows how two expert agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), pursue different strategies when setting the global agenda and influencing policymaking. The findings show that the WHO’s approach to policymaking regarding AMR has been mostly guided by top-down, science-led, formal engagements and strategies. This approach has successfully increased the salience of the global challenge of AMR, providing strong, evidence-based solutions, but it has been less successful in promoting the challenge onto the global political agenda. In contrast, the UNFCCC’s approach to policymaking has relied more on horizontal, bottom-up, multidisciplinary, informal strategies. This approach has enabled a broader coalition of advocacy actors and placed CC persistently on the global political agenda. In this way, the article enhances our understanding of the role experts play in drawing attention to creeping crises.en_US
dc.identifier.citationZaman, Rubin, Staupe. The challenges experts face during creeping crises: the curse of complacency. Policy & Politics. 2024en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2245452
dc.identifier.doi10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000017
dc.identifier.issn0305-5736
dc.identifier.issn1470-8442
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/33018
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherPolicy Pressen_US
dc.relation.journalPolicy & Politics
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/897656/Denmark/Political Dynamics of Slow-Onset Disasters: Contrasting Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and Ebola Responses/SlowDisasters/en_US
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.titleThe challenges experts face during creeping crises: the curse of complacencyen_US
dc.type.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record