What impact do interventions by central/federal or local levels of government in local emergency preparedness training have on the focus of training, comprehensiveness, and quality control? An analysis of two cases of intervention by central/federal levels of government reveals that training is likely to be (a) skill oriented and competence framed, (b) comprehensive, and (c) quality controlled in a relatively rigorous manner. An analysis of two additional cases of intervention by local levels of government reveals that training is likely to be (a) skill oriented and competence framed with a focus on people and emergency-related organizational issues, (b) noncomprehensive, and (c) weakly controlled for quality.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1984). Regulatory federalism: Policy, process, impact, and reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
AgranoffR. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66, 56-65.
3.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
4.
AlexanderD. (2003). Towards the development of standards in emergency management training and education. Disaster Prevention and Management, 12, 113-123.
5.
BäckH.MagnierA.HeineltH. (2006). Introduction. In BäckH.MagnierA.HeineltH. (Eds.), The European mayor: Political leaders in the changing context of local democracy (pp. 7-20). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
6.
BardachE. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
7.
BardhanP. (2002). Decentralization of government and development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 185-205.
8.
BeckU. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, UK: Sage.
9.
BermanD. R. (2007). State-local relations: Authority and finances. In ICMA (Ed.), The International City/County Management Association municipal year book 2007 (pp. 48-57). Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
10.
BrennanH. G.BuchananJ. M. (1980). The power to tax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BushG. W. (2003, February28). Homeland security presidential directive 5. Washington, DC: Office of the Press Secretary, the White House.
12.
Cabinet Office. (2004). Civil Contingencies Act 2004: A short guide (Revised). London, UK: Author.
13.
CarpenterD. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
CarusonK.MacManusS. A. (2007). Designing Homeland Security Policy within a regional structure: A needs assessment of local security concerns. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4, 1-23.
ClarkG. (1984). A theory of local autonomy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74, 195-200.
17.
Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences. (2006). Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
18.
DentersB.RoseL. E. (2005). Comparing local governance: Trends and developments. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
19.
DynesR. R. (1993). Disaster reduction: The importance of adequate assumptions about social organization. Sociological Spectrum, 6, 24-25.
20.
DynesR. R. (1994). Community emergency planning: False assumptions and inappropriate analogies. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 12, 141-158.
21.
EdwardsF. L. (2007). Federal intervention in local emergency planning: Nightmare on main street. State and Local Government Review, 39, 31-43.
22.
ElazarD. J. (1987). Exploring federalism. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
GerringJ.TuckerS. C.MorenoC. (2004, September). Are unitary systems better than federal systems?Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
26.
GoldsmithM. (1995). Autonomy and city limits. In DavidJ.StokerG.WolmanH. (Eds.), Theories of urban politics (pp. 228-252). London, UK: Sage.
27.
GoldsmithS.EggersW. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28.
GurrT.KingD. S. (1987). The state and the city. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
29.
HambletonR.SweetingD. (2004). U.S.-style leadership for English local government?Public Administration Review, 64, 476-488.
30.
HesseJ. J.SharpeL. J. (1991). Local government in international perspective: Some comparative observations. In HesseJ. J. (Ed), Local government and urban affairs in international perspective (pp. 603-621). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
31.
HoodC. (2002). The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition, 31, 15-37.
32.
HuberE.RaginC.StephensJ. D. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure and the welfare state. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 711-749.
33.
HuntingtonS. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
JonesB. D. (1995). Bureaucrats and urban politics: Who controls? Who benefits? In JudgeD.StokerG.WolmanH. (Eds.), Theories of urban politics (pp. 72-95). London, UK: Sage.
35.
KellyJ. (2007). The missing ingredient: Inter-municipal cooperation and central-local relations in the UK. In HulstR.MonfortA. V. (Eds.), Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe (pp. 193-210). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
36.
KettlD. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review, 66, 10-19.
37.
KickertW.KlijnE. -H.KoopenjanJ. F. M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London, UK: Sage.
38.
KincaidJ. (1990). From cooperative to coercive federalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 509, 139-152.
39.
KirkpatrickD. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berret Koehler.
40.
KiserE. (1999). Comparing varieties of agency theory in economics, political science, and sociology: An illustration from state policy implementation. Sociological Theory, 17, 146-170.
41.
KjellbergF. (1988). Local government and the welfare state: Reorganization in Scandinavia. In DenteB.KjellbergF. (Eds.), The dynamics of institutional change: Local government reorganization in Western democracies (pp. 39-70). London, UK: Sage.
42.
KrepsG. A.BosworthS. L. (2006). Organizational adaptation to disaster. In RodriguezH.QuarantelliE. L.DynesR. R. (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 279-316). New York, NY: Springer.
43.
KrueathepW.RiccucciN. M.SuwanmalaC. (2010). Why do agencies work together? The determinants of network formation at the subnational level of government in Thailand. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 157-185. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun013
44.
LijphartA. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
LinderY.SapirY. (2007). Consulting activity in local authorities in Northern Israel: A foundation document. Internal Document. Jerusalem: ELKA (JDC-Israel) (in Hebrew).
46.
LowndesV. (2002). Between rhetoric and reality: Does the 2001 White Paper reverse the centralizing trend in Britain. Local Government Studies, 28, 135-147.
47.
MainJ. T. (1974). The anti-federalist: Critics of the constitution, 1781-1788. New York, NY: Norton.
48.
MaorM. (in press). Emergency preparedness consultants at the local government level: The Israeli experience. Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management.
49.
McGuireM. (2002). Managing networks: Propositions on what managers do and why they do it. Public Administration Review, 62, 599-609.
50.
Ministry of Interior. (2003). Ministry of interior response to the Ombudsman Report’s draft, training centers for local government. Jerusalem, Israel: Author.
51.
Ministry of Welfare and Social Services. (2007a). Community resilience centers. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services.
52.
Ministry of Welfare and Social Services. (2007b). Training systems: The operation of the training system of the interdisciplinary procedure in emergency and the connection to the community resilience program. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services.
53.
MoeT. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739-777.
54.
MoeT. M. (2005). Power and political institutions. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 215-233.
55.
MoeT. M. (2006). Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22, 1-29.
56.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). Combining structural forms in the search for policy tools: Incident command systems in the U.S. crisis management. Governance, 21, 205-230.
57.
OatesW. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1120-1149.
58.
O’TooleL. J. (1996). Hollowing the infrastructure: Revolving loan programs and network dynamics in the American State. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 225-242.
59.
O’TooleL. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57, 45-57.
60.
O’TooleL. J.MeierK. J. (1999). Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 505-526.
61.
O’TooleL. J.MeierK. J. (2004). Desperately seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the dark side of public management in networks. Public Administration Review, 64, 681-693.
62.
PageE. C. (1991). Localism and centralism in Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
63.
PerryR. W.LindellM. K. (2003). Preparedness for emergency response: Guidelines for the emergency planning process. Disaster, 27, 336-350.
64.
PickvanceC.PreteceilleE. (1991). State restructuring and local power. London, UK: Pinter.
65.
PilkingtonC. (2001). A constitutional question: The United Kingdom or Federal Britain? In LyntonR.JonesB. (Eds.), Debates in British politics today (pp. 27-37). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
66.
RaabJ. (2002). Where do policy networks come from?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 581-622.
67.
ScharpfF. W. (1978). Interorganizational policy studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives. In KennethH.ScharpfF. W. (Eds.), Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control. London, UK: Sage.
68.
ScharpfF. W. (2000). Notes toward a theory of multilevel governing in Europe (MPIfG Discussion Paper 2000/5). Cologne, Germany: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.
69.
SelznickP. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
70.
State Comptroller and Ombudsman. (2007). The preparation of the Home Front Command and its functioning during the second Lebanon War (official report). Jerusalem, Israel: Author.
71.
StokerG. (1991). The politics of local government (2nd ed.). London, UK: Macmillan.
72.
StokerG.WilsonD. (2004). Introduction. In StokerG.WilsonD. (Eds.), British local government into the 21st century (pp. 1-6). Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
73.
Sulitzeanu-KenanR.VanhuysseP. (2009). Teachers’ PAT? Multiple-role principal-agent theory, education policy and bureaucrat power. Critical Studies in Education, 50, 129-144.
74.
SwankD. H. (2002). Global capital, political institutions, and policy change in developed welfare states. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
TanziV. (1996). Fiscal federalism and efficiency: A review of some efficiency and macroeconomic aspects. In BrunoM.PleskovicB. (Eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1995. Washington, DC: World Bank.
76.
ThomsonA. M.PerryJ. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66, 20-32.
77.
TieboutC. M. (1956). A pure theory of local government expenditure. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
TsebelisG. (2000). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
80.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2004, March1). National Incident Management System. Washington, DC: Author.
81.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2005, April12). NIMS National Standard Curriculum: Training development guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
82.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2007a, March). NIMS—National Standard Curriculum Training Development Guidance FY07. Washington, DC: Author.
83.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2007b). NIMS training. Washington, DC: Author.
84.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2007a). NIMS compliance corrective action plan. Washington, DC: Author.
85.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2007b). NIMS implementation matrix for states and territories. Washington, DC: Author.
86.
WadeR. (1985). The market for public office: Why the Indian State is not better at development. World Development, 13, 467-497.
87.
WeaverK. (1986). The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 371-398.
88.
WilsonD. (2004). New patterns of central-local government relations. In StokerG.WilsonD. (Eds.), British local government into the 21st century (pp. 9-24). Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
89.
WolmanH.GoldsmithM. (1992). Urban politics and policy. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
90.
WollmannH. (2003). Coordination in the intergovernmental setting. In GuyG.PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 594-600). London, UK: Sage.
91.
WollmannH.BouckaertG. (2006). State organization in France and Germany between territoriality and functionality. In Hoffmann-MartinotV.WollmannH. (Eds.), State and local government reforms in France and Germany: Divergence and convergence (pp. 11-38). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
