Tuncay Unal, PhD
tuncay.unal@gc4ss.org

Expert
Global Center for Security Studies

Emergency management is a multidisciplinary field that draws on public administration, political science, sociology, geography, and organisational studies. While early research concentrated primarily on disaster response and operational issues, contemporary scholarship has broadened the scope to include mitigation, preparedness, ethics, governance, and social vulnerability.

Quarantelli (1988, 1998) argues that disasters should be conceptualised primarily as social events rather than merely physical or natural occurrences. He emphasises that emergency management consists of organised collective responses to disruptions that exceed routine institutional capacities. From this perspective, effective emergency management requires a thorough understanding of organisational behaviour, social structures, and institutional coordination during crisis situations.

Dynes (1970, 1994) further developed the sociological perspective by discussing how communities mobilise and organise during disaster events. He states that conceptualised emergency management, as a form of collective action, should focus on sustaining or reestablishing community functioning. Dynes’s research challenged traditional command-and-control approaches, demonstrating that decentralised, flexible responses are often more effective in managing complex emergencies.

Drabek (1986, 2007) emphasised the critical role of trust, reliable information, and social networks in influencing both individual and collective behaviour during emergencies. He conceptualised emergency management as an ongoing process that involves sustained planning, effective communication, and coordination between public authorities and the communities they serve.

Emergency Management as a Function of Public Administration and Governance

Emergency management is increasingly recognised as a fundamental function of public administration because it involves governance, intergovernmental coordination, and public leadership under conditions of uncertainty. Scholars argue that beyond technical response activities, emergency management constitutes a complex administrative process that requires collaboration among federal, state, and local governments, as well as non-governmental and private-sector actors (Waugh, 2000). Because no single organization has the authority or resources necessary to manage disasters independently, emergency management depends on effective collaboration and leadership (Waugh & Streib, 2006; Comfort, 2007).

Waugh & Streib (2006) further argued that effective emergency management depends on shared governance, the development of trust, and horizontal coordination among organizations. According to their analysis, failures such as Hurricane Katrina demonstrate how fragmented authority and insufficient coordination can significantly weaken emergency response efforts. According to Comfort (2007), rigid bureaucratic arrangements are often ineffective in dynamic disaster contexts, whereas flexible, information-intensive systems facilitate improved coordination and more effective decision-making.

According to Boin et al. (2016), emergency management extends beyond technical and administrative functions and should be understood as a political process influenced by public expectations, media attention, and post-crisis blame attribution. Their research shows that failures in coordination, slow decision-making, and ineffective communication under pressure are largely the result of leadership shortcomings. Consequently, emergency management practices serve as a critical test of leadership legitimacy and institutional credibility.

Understanding Disaster Risk Through Social Vulnerability

Tierney (2007, 2014) argues that disasters tend to disproportionately impact marginalised groups and that emergency management institutions often reinforce existing social inequalities. Similarly, Cutter et al. (2003) introduced the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) as a systematic framework for evaluating how demographic, economic, and social conditions shape disaster outcomes. This perspective asserts that emergency management should prioritise reducing exposure, sensitivity, and vulnerability through mitigation strategies and the enhancement of adaptive capacity. Mileti (1999) argues that disasters are frequently the result of inadequate planning and flawed policy choices rather than unavoidable events. He emphasises that emergency management should adopt a comprehensive and systematic approach to minimising losses across all stages of the disaster cycle.

McEntire (2007, 2015) conceptualises emergency management as both a professional field and an academic discipline, defining it as a systematic process encompassing prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. He emphasises the importance of theory development, professional standards, and ethical decision-making. Closely aligned with the Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) model, McEntire’s work reinforces the view of emergency management as an ongoing governance function that integrates mitigation and coordination across all hazards rather than a purely reactive activity.

In conclusion, the literature indicates that emergency management is a complex and multifaceted field that integrates organisational dynamics, governance, social behavior, leadership, ethical considerations, and vulnerability. Early sociological studies emphasised the social dimensions of disasters, whereas later public administration research highlighted the importance of coordination, institutional capacity, and leadership. On the other hand, recent literature has increasingly focused on inequality, resilience, and adaptive governance frameworks.

Emergency management literature reflects a substantial shift from response-oriented models toward comprehensive, risk-informed, and equity-focused approaches that emphasize collaborative governance and social justice.

References

Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2016). The politics of crisis management. Cambridge University Press.

Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(S1), 189–197.

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.

Drabek, T. E. (1986). Human system responses to disaster. Springer.

Drabek, T. E. (2007). Community processes: Coordination. FEMA.

Dynes, R. R. (1970). Organized behavior in disaster. Heath Lexington Books.

Dynes, R. R. (1994). Community emergency planning. Disaster Research Center.

McEntire, D. A. (2007). Emergency management theory. FEMA.

McEntire, D. A. (2015). Disaster response and recovery. Wiley.

Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design. Joseph Henry Press.

Quarantelli, E. L. (1988). Disaster crisis management: A summary of research findings. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 373–385.

Quarantelli, E. L. (1998). What is a disaster? Routledge.

Tierney, K. (2007). From the margins to the mainstream? Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 503–525.

Tierney, K. (2014). The social roots of risk. Stanford University Press.

Waugh, W. L., Jr., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66(Special Issue), 131–140.