Coping with uncertainty is a challenge to most organisations. In recent social science debates this uncertainty is frequently framed and discussed as risk. Risks occur in different areas of society, concern public and private organisations to varying degrees and involve different organisational units for analysis, prevention, and management. This variety is mirrored in disciplinary perspectives on risks. Whereas sociologists reflect on the "risk society" (Beck 1992), policy analysts are mainly preoccupied with risk regulation and organisational scholars often focus on standards and procedures of risk assessment and risk management e.g. in the field of accounting firms. However, public organisations are heavily involved in the organisational skeleton of the "risk architecture". Not only are they perceived as guardians of the common public interest (which is to diminish risks), they regularly make collectively binding decisions on how to cope with risks and it is one of the classic core tasks of any (nation) state to protect its citizens. Hence, public organisations are particularly concerned when it comes to such and other economic, societal, and environmental risks, ranging from the current economic financial crisis, to international terrorism and climate change. This sub-theme focuses on the relations of public organisations and risks (see e.g. Czarniawska 2009; Hood et al. 2001; Power 2007).

As risks occur the environment of public organisations, the subtheme applies theoretical frameworks referring to the interaction of organisations and their institutionalist environments, particularly on new institutionalism in organisation theory (see e.g. Christensen et al. 2007; Czarniawska 2009; DiMaggio/Powell 1993; March/Olsen 1989; Meyer/Rowan 1977; Scott 2008). Assuming a causal relationship of institutional environment and organisational structures and behaviour, new institutionalism in organisation theory provides conceptualisations for how public organisations cope with risks. However, the subtheme is likewise interested to develop these theoretical perspectives further and to identify alternative explanations for organisational responses to risks as ambiguous externalities of organisational life (e.g. Mahoney/Thelen 2010). In methodological terms, the subtheme is interested in the whole range of methods to assess how organisations in the public sector cope with risks, ranging from quantitative studies, e.g. interpreting survey results, to qualitative case studies. It is particularly interested in comparative research, either from a cross-country, cross-time, or cross-sectoral perspective. Likewise, the subtheme aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of applying distinct methods or their combination in order to examine the complex and often recursive interactions between risk and public sector organisations.

Public organisations are faced by a variety of risks that can be short-term (e.g. natural disasters, school shootings) or long-term (e.g. demographic change, toxic waste, or climate change). Moreover, the identification of these risks can be primarily based upon natural sciences (e.g. in biotechnology or geosciences) or rather relies on intelligence and police work (e.g. in terrorism and homeland security). The potential danger and effects of highly complex risks such as e.g. those arising from global financial markets, genetic engineering in biotechnology or agriculture are often highly contentious and their assessment is often based upon highly ambiguous findings that can easily develop into highly political (and conflicting) issues. Even more so are measures for prevention. When risks are actually realised they can occur as crises to which – again – typically public organisations have to react.

Hence, public organisations are concerned by and with risks in two ways: Firstly, they are supposed to assess and forecast risks, which might result in particular programmes, regulations or decisions (e.g. in the areas of food safety, flood prevention, financial market regulation). Secondly, they are supposed to manage those risks particularly when they actually occur (e.g. pandemics like the Mexican flu). Both of those challenges often require political and/or bureaucratic action across organisational boundaries. Hence, classic organisational boundaries of public organisations are challenged in two respects. On the one hand, traditional organisational structures have to be aligned towards increased interactions across
organisations and nation states (including EU and international level), as well as across sectors, i.e. between the public and the private and third/voluntary sector. On the other hand, traditional organisational behaviour and practices are frequently challenged by contested wisdoms about the nature of the risk, its assessment, and management. Assuming an increasing relevance of risks in modern society accompanied by a plurality of perceived risks, public organisations are expected to react by organisational innovations resulting in reassembling organisations and their internal structures and practices. This catalogue of challenges to public organisations confronted with modern and postmodern risks creates a variety of research questions to organisational scholars. Public organisations are supposed to cope with those risks in both their structure and organisational practices. Can we observe public organisations re-assembling to accommodate particular risks? According to which mechanisms and standards is scientific ambiguity proceeded in public organisations in order to produce decisions? Do public organisations change as an effect of changed risk perception?

Comparing public organisations and their accommodation towards certain risks appears to be particularly interesting as public organisations are heavily connected to their domestic risk perceptions which are supposed to be culturally framed. Hence, which factors do we identify to account for
particular accommodation ways? How can we measure such an impact of cultural cognitions on structure and behaviour of organisational actors managing risks?

We welcome conceptual, theoretical, and empirical papers which address one or several of the following research questions:

• Are new organisational forms emerging in the area of risk prevention and/or management? Which kinds of "risk organisation" predominate?
• Are certain organisational arrangements better suited to tackle and prevent risks than others?
• How can we theorise such organisational changes in terms of risk assessment and/or risk management?
• To what extent can cultural provisions, e.g. entrenched in risk perceptions, explain the change of public organisations assigned with risk regulation?
• How do public managers perceive different kinds of risks?
• What relationships between scientific/external experts, politicians and bureaucratic actors emerge in the areas of risk regulation?
• How do public sector organisations responsible for risk regulation "speak truth to power"?
• Does the classic nexus between politics and administration differ with regard to risk regulation?
• How can we measure risk regulation and "risk performance", i.e. the task performance of public sector organisations involved in risk assessment and/or risk management?

References

Beck, Ulrich (1992): Risk society: Towards a new modernity, London: Sage.
Christensen, Tom/Lægreid, Per/Roness, Paul G./Røvik, Kjell A. (2007): Organization Theory for the Public Sector: Instrument, Culture and Myth, London: Routledge.
Czarniawska, Barbara (ed.) (2009): Organizing in the Face of Risk and Threat, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
DiMaggio, Paul J./Powell, Walter W. (1983): The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. In: American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Hood, Christopher/Rothstein, Henry/Baldwin, Robert (2001): The government of risk: understanding risk regulation regimes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahoney, James/Thelen, Kathleen (eds.) (2010b): Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
March, James G./Olsen, Johan P. (1989): Rediscovering Institutions, New York: The Free Press.
Meyer, John W./Rowan, Brian (1977): Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. In: American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Power, Michael (2007): Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott, W. Richard (2008a): Institutions and Organizations, 3rd ed., London: Sage.

Team of convenors

Julia Fleischer is Research Fellow at the German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer. Her main research interests are institutional and organisation theory, comparative public administration, and risk governance. Currently, her scholarly work addresses the governance of climate risks in central government organisations and the comparative analysis of administrative elites.

Per Lægreid is Professor at the Stein Rokkan Centre, Department of Administration and Organisation Theory at the University of Bergen, Norway. His main research interests include organisation theory, comparative public policy, welfare administration reforms, and comparative administration. His current research addresses tensions between sector and territorial specialisation in the public sector,  particularly for organising the protection of civilians in society.

Thurid Hustedt is Research Fellow at the Faculty for Economic and Social Sciences at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Her main research interests include institutional theory, central government organisation, and comparative public administration. Currently, she does research on the governance of climate risks in central governments from a comparative perspective.