300 words

Christopher J. Koliba is an associate

professor in the Department of Community

Development and Applied Economics and

director of the master of public admin-

istration program at the University of

Vermont. He earned a doctorate from the

Maxwell School at Syracuse University.

He has published on topics relating to

governance networks, action research,

communities of practice, and progressive

educational policy. He is the lead author of

the book Governance Networks in Public

Administration and Public Policy (CRC

Press), which was published in 2010.

E-mail: [email protected]

Russell M. Mills is a doctoral candidate

in the Department of Political Science at

Kent State University. His current research,

funded by a grant from the IBM Center

for the Business of Government, examines

the Federal Aviation Administration’s use

of voluntary regulatory safety partner-

ships with air carriers. Other research

interests include the policy implications of

governance networks and state-level public

policy making.

E-mail: [email protected]

Asim Zia is an assistant professor in the

Department of Community Development

and Applied Economics at the University of

Vermont. He has a doctorate in public policy

from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

In 2005, the Association for Public Policy

Analysis and Management honored him

with its best doctoral dissertation award.

His research focuses on the policy analysis

of complex systems, governance networks,

and decision analysis.

E-mail: [email protected]

Spotlight on Critical Grassroots Public Administration Issues

210 Public Administration Review • March | April 2011

Christopher J. Koliba Russell M. Mills University of Vermont Kent State University

Asim Zia University of Vermont

What is the most eff ective framework for analyzing complex accountability challenges within governing networks? Recognizing the multiscale and intersector (public, private, and nonprofi t) characteristics of these networks, an accountability model is advanced organized around democratic (elected representatives, citizens, and the legal system), market (owners and consumers), as well as administrative (bureaucratic, professional and collaborative) relationships. Th is concept draws from 2005 events following Hurricane Katrina. Multiple failures of governing networks to plan for and respond to Katrina include a breakdown in democratic, market, and administrative accountability as well as a pervasive confusion over trade-off s between accountability types emerging from crises. Th is essay off ers several useful recommendations for emergency management planners as well as for those who teach and research.

The disaster that resulted from the Gulf Coast landfall of Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, may be understood as the result of mul- tiple failures in the accountability regimes (Mashaw 2006) of the governance networks that were respon- sible for preparing and responding to it. Th e disaster exposed “failed systems of engineering, economics, public safety, logistics, recovery, and race relations” (Cigler 2007b, 64). Th ese systemic breakdowns were promulgated by poorly coordinated responses between all levels of government (Ink 2006) and across the public, voluntary, and private sectors (Edwards 2009; Ink 2006; GAO 2006), as well as individual leaders’ failures to execute sound, professional judgment (Kettl 2005). Drawing on the plethora of studies of the response and recovery following Hurricane Katrina undertaken since 2005, we argue that Hurricane Katrina exposed some of the biggest breakdowns of governance networks in modern history, and

highlight the need for further theoretical and empiri- cal development of analytical tools to identify and assess how and where failures of accountability lead to failures in performance.

While Hurricane Katrina provides essential les- sons regarding emergency management responses to catastrophic disasters, the case also raises ques- tions relating to how accountability functions within governance networks more generally. Certain net- work characteristics may be said to persist across any interorganizational network implicated in the policy stream. In this paper, we introduce an accountability model that considers the kinds of multisector, cross- jurisdictional, collaborative arrangements often found within governance networks. Th e fi rst half of the pa- per introduces this conceptual model. An operational defi nition of governance networks is provided, draw- ing links to the existing accountability and network governance literatures.

In the second half of the paper, we apply the ac- countability framework to a number of studies that were conducted of some of the governance networks implicated in the response and recovery eff orts fol- lowing Hurricane Katrina. We discuss how trade-off s between accountability types may have led to failures in network performance and off er some recommenda-

tions for emergency management practitioners and policy makers.

Defi ning Governance Networks We fi nd interorganizational networks described across much of the policy implementation (Hill and Hupe 2006) and intergovernmental (O’Toole 2000) literatures. Interorganiza- tional networks have also been implicated in the literature pertaining to policy networks (Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan

Accountability in Governance Networks: An Assessment of Public, Private, and Nonprofi t Emergency Management Practices Following Hurricane Katrina

. . . [W]e argue that Hurricane Katrina exposed some of

the biggest breakdowns of governance networks in modern

history, and highlight the need for further theoretical

and empirical development of analytical tools to identify and

assess how and where failures of accountability lead to failures in

performance.

Accountability in Governance Networks 211

Such standards often are put into writing and appear as contracts, regulations, laws, performance standards, and formal rules and are explicitly stated within performance measures. Kearns defi nes im- plicit standards as “ill-defi ned and, perhaps, shifting notions of what constitutes responsible or appropriate behavior” that “are rooted in professional norms and social values, beliefs, and assumptions about the public interest, the public trust, and how (and to whom) organizational behavior should be explained . . . they can involve powerful sanctions for nonperformance or noncompliance” (1996, 66–67). Implicit norms exist as “theories-in-use” (Argyris and Schön 1996) that rely on the active participation of actors to create, recre- ate, enforce, and object to them. Implicit norms may be understood as a weaker accountability tool because they are often predicated on tacit knowledge. Implicit standards may include principal–agent norms (Milward and Provan 1998), democratic values (Sørenson and Torfi ng 2005), policy goals (Stone 2002), and reciprocity and trust (Behn 2001). Th ose to whom accounts are rendered will inevi- tably prioritize diff erent combinations of policy goals, performance measures, and other desired procedures and outcomes, placing value on and rendering judgment of performance indicators diff erently (Radin 2006).

Romzek and Dubnick’s (1987) model of accountability is arguably the most infl uential framework used to analyze the accountability structures of governmental organizations. Drawing on a study of the space shuttle Challenger explosion, they illustrate four diff erent accountability structures at work within NASA, and among govern- ment actors in general: political, legal, bureaucratic, and profes- sional. In their 2 x 2 accountability model, Romzek and Dubnick conjoin four accountability frames to considerations of external and internal control and high and low degrees of control. Th ey suggest that degrees of control may be understood in terms of the strength of ties. Presumably, stronger ties elicit higher levels of control. Within governance networks, the degree of centrality and the rela-

tive strengths of the “controlling” entities are often highly contextual and contingent on the positionality of the organizational actors within the governance network.

Table 1 lays out the governance network ac- countability model that will be introduced and applied in this manuscript. Th e basic elements of accountably outlined here are applied to eight diff erent accountability types situated within one of three accountability frames.

Within a governance network framework, power is interpreted in terms of the vertical and horizontal nature of relationships between actors “to whom” and “from whom” account- ability is being rendered (Bardach and Lesser 1996). Each accountability frame is considered

in light of the relational power that exists between actors within governance networks. By building on these assertions, we seek to give shape to the theoretical and practical applications of “narra- tives of accountability” (Scott 2006) that need to be developed for governance networks. An accountability framework applied to gov- ernance networks must account for its democratic anchorage; the possibility that market-oriented businesses, corporations, or fi rms

1997; Rhodes 1997), public–private partnerships (Linder and Rosenau 2000), third-party governance (Salamon 2002), govern- ance networks (Klijn and Skelcher 2007; Koliba, Meek, and Zia 2010; Sørensen and Torfi ng 2005), cross-sector collaborations (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006), and public management net- works (Agranoff 2007). All of these literatures describe networks as possessing the capacity to involve public, private, and volun- tary sector actors, often spanning international, national, re- gional, state, local, and individual levels or planes (Guo and Acar 2005). Th ey also assume that government agencies need not serve as the “lead organization” (Provan and Kenis 2008) or a major “hub” in the network. Governance networks are relatively stable patterns of coordinated action and resource exchanges involving policy actors crossing diff erent social scales, drawn from the pub- lic, private, or nonprofi t sectors and across geographic levels, who interact through a variety of competitive, command and control, cooperative, and negotiated arrangements for purposes anchored in one or more facets of the policy stream (Koliba, Meek, and Zia 2010).

Many have noted how the shift from a monocentric system of government to a polycentric system of governance raises serious accountability challenges (Acar, Guo, and Yang 2008; Behn 2001; Mashaw 2006; Page 2004; Posner 2002; Scott 2006). Because it can no longer be assumed that the state possesses the same kind of authority that traditionally has been ascribed to public organiza- tions, governing these interorganizational networks creates new accountability challenges. Th ese challenges arise when states are displaced as central actors, when market forces are considered, and when cooperation and collaboration is recognized as an integral administrative activity.

Discerning the accountability structures amid the complexity that emerges in cross-sector, cross-jurisdictional arrangements requires us to consider the dynamics at work when the accountability structures of one network actor comingle, compete, or complement the accountability structures of other network actors. As a result of unpacking these dynam- ics, we may be able to ascertain the extent to which “hybrid accountability regimes” (Mashaw 2006, 118) emerge within govern- ance networks.

A Governance Network Accountability Framework Accountability may be construed as “the obligation to give an account of one’s actions to someone else, often balanced by a responsi- bility of that other to seek an account” (Scott 2006, 175). Obligations are structured and/ or enforced through the adoption of explicit standards and implicit norms (Kearns 1996) and through a rec- ognition and responsiveness to particular individuals, groups, or organizations (Mashaw 2006). Kearns defi nes explicit standards as being “codifi ed in law, administrative regulations, bureaucratic checks and balances, or contractual obligations to other organiza- tions” (1996, 66). In essence, explicit standards are reifi ed “artifacts” that provide stable parameters used to structure coordinated action.

Discerning the accountability structures amid the complexity

that emerges in cross- sector, cross-jurisdictional

arrangements requires us to consider the dynamics at

work when the accountability structures of one network

actor comingle, compete, or complement the accountability

structures of other network actors.

212 Public Administration Review • March | April 2011

expands the capacity for citizens to access networks and benefi t from the outputs and outcomes of network activity (Sørensen and Torfi ng 2005). In democratic systems, political accountability may be framed as “democratic” accountability through which elected representative and citizens serve as the actors to whom accountability must be rendered. Th e standards and norms used by citizens and elected offi cials to hold public bureaucracies accountable may be understood in terms of the laws and regulations passed by elected offi cials, the rights of citizens to exercise their voice, and the kind of norms often ascribed to deliberations about public policy (Stone 2002).

We refi ne Romzek and Dubnick’s sense of political accountability by narrowing in on the critical roles that elected representatives and cit- izens play, recasting political accountability as the democratic frame through which elected representative accountability empowers elected representatives to serve as the principal actors in the legislative and executive branches of democratic governments. Although voted into offi ce by citizens, elected representatives become the principal of public bureaucracies through their powers to allocate resources, mandate certain actions, or monitor the day-to-day administration of the executive branch. Elected representative accountability is built on stronger formal ties that have been established through constitu- tional law and the separation of powers.

Citizens, by contrast, may directly hold public organizations ac- countable through the horizontal (and essentially weaker) ties forged through maximum feasible participation regulations, sunshine laws, and deliberative forums. Th e importance of citizen accountability for the democratic frame of governance networks is recognized within the literatures pertaining to citizen participation and public ad- ministration (Cooper 1984), deliberative democracy (Fung 2006), participatory governance (Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’Leary 2005), and collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2007). It has been widely noted that citizens possess relatively weak controls over other

are implicated in and by network activity; and the interplay of both bureaucratic and collaborative ties within network structures.

Two familiar dichotomies posed within the public administration and political science fi elds are useful here: the politics–administra- tion dichotomy (Goodnow 1900) and the distinction between democracy and markets (Stone 2002). Th at it takes a combination of political and administrative accountabilities to eff ectively govern public institutions has been a widely accepted assumption in public administration (Appleby 1943). However, the division between po- litical and administrative functions in public administration theory is still widely assumed (see Romzek and Dubnick 1987; Rosen- bloom 1983). Stone (2002) draws a distinction between the market and the polis (democracy) as a means of understanding how policy is framed through goals, problems, and solutions. Distinctions between democracy and markets have been interpreted through neoliberal, neocorporate, neoconservative, and critical theory lenses, all of which may be useful in determining the apparent trade-off s existing between them (Miraftab 2005). Out of a recognition of these trade-off s, we construct a three-pronged theory of accountabil- ity for governance networks encompassing democratic, market, and administrative frames.

Democratic Frame Romzek and Dubnick refer to political accountability as responsive- ness to the needs and concerns of political constituents and public stakeholders. Political accountability structures rely on public access to governmental decision-making processes directly through open meeting laws, freedom of information acts, maximum feasible participation requirements, and sunshine laws, or indirectly through the representation of elected offi cials. In essence, political account- ability confers the vestiges of “democratic anchorage” on public bu- reaucracies. Th e depth and breadth of the democratic anchorage of a governance network is said to depend on the roles of elected offi cials and public administrators and the extent to which the network

Table 1. Governance Network Accountability Framework

Accountability Frame Accountability Type

To Whom Is Account Rendered? Strength of Ties Explicit Standards Implicit Norms

Democratic Elected representative Elected offi cials Strong (weaker when “lame duck”)

Laws, statutes, regulations Representation of collective interests, policy goals

Citizen Citizens Weak (stronger during elections)

Maximum feasible participation, sunshine laws, deliberative forums

Deliberation, consensus, majority rule

Legal Courts Strong Laws, statutes, contracts Precedence, reasonableness, due process, substantive rights

Market Shareholder/ owner

Shareholders/ owners

Strong Profi t, performance measures

Effi ciency

Consumer Consumers Weak Consumer law, product performance measures

Affordability, quality, satisfaction

Administrative Bureaucratic Principals, supervisors, bosses

Strong Performance measures, administrative procedures, organizational charts

Deference to positional authority; unity of command, span of control

Professional Experts, professionals

Weak (stronger when capacity to revoke licenses exists)

Codes of ethics, licensure, performance standards

Professional norms, expertise, competence

Collaborative Collaborators, peers, partners

Weak Written agreements, decision-making procedures, negotiation regimes

Trust, reciprocity, durability of relationships

Accountability in Governance Networks 213

purchase, the consumer may be understood as holding a corporation accountable. “Th e central mechanism of this modality is competi- tion. Th us, a standard is set through the interaction of buyers and sellers, which also forms the basis for monitoring and rewarding compliant behavior through loyalty and for punishing deviant behavior through exit” (Scott 2006, 178). Mulgan observes that

While a customer may hold a private sector provider account- able in the case of a faulty individual purchase or contract, he or she has no general right to demand that the private provider off er services that meet his or her perceived needs. In a competitive market, the main mechanism of responsiveness is consumer choice, the capacity of the consumer to exit to an alternative provider. (2000, 569)

Within the context of governance networks, consumer account- ability may be understood within the New Public Management edict to treat “citizens as customers.” Existing as atomized individual consumers of goods and services, consumer accountability exhibits relatively weak measures of control.

Administrative Frame An administrative frame of governance network accountability may be viewed in terms of the vertical and horizontal ties within hierarchical bureaucracies and fl atter collaborative arrangements. Th e administrative frame encompasses the implementation of poli- cies and decisions (Chandler and Plano 1982) and is directed at the relationships between actors who, by virtue of their positional authority within (and across) organizations, interact with each other to achieve some collective ends. Th e administrative frame focuses on the processes, procedures, and practices that are employed in the administration and management of formally organized social networks. Our chief concern here is distilling administrative rela- tionships down to their basic processes and exploring how account- ability may be framed administratively in terms of the dynamics operating between principals and agents, professionals, and collabo- rators.

Bureaucratic accountability structures are characterized by hierarchi- cal arrangements through which there are clear relationships be- tween subordinates and superiors who rely on the classical principles ascribed to hierarchical, bureaucratic structures such as the “unity of command” and “span of control” (Fayol 1949). Th ese principles may be embodied within the formal operating standards and proce- dures in place, along with stated rules and regulations. Bureaucratic accountability structures rely on an adherence to intraorganiza- tional rules and procedures and, more informally, “principal–agent” norms (Milward and Provan 1998). Th is form of accountability stresses the importance of authority embodied in vertically arranged relationships within formal organizations. Individual nonprofi t organizations may rely on bureaucratic accountability structures, as do hierarchically arranged businesses. Th is form of accountability is premised on the capacity of principals to exert strong measures of control over their agents.

Within the context of Romzek and Dubnick’s accountability frame- work, professional accountability structures rely on the skills and ex- pertise of “professionals” to inform sound judgments and discretion. Th ey assert that “[p]rofessional accountability is characterized by

actors operating within a governance network, with their positions strengthened during election periods.

Romzek and Dubnick suggest that a legal accountability structure stresses the role that judiciary and quasi-judiciary procedures play in ensuring the execution of sound and reasonable judgments within an organization. Although they diff erentiate legal from political accountability, we follow Mashaw’s (2006) lead in equating legal accountability with a democratic frame of reference. Legal account- ability is ensured through laws and other explicit standards such as due process, substantive rights, and legal agreements found in binding contractual arrangements (Rosenbloom 1983). Presumably, all types of organizations and individuals are held to some measure of legal accountability, often predicated on adherence to the “rule of law,” constitutional law, civil and criminal laws, and/or legisla- tive mandates. Legal accountability distinguishes itself through the centrality of the legal system and the roles that judges and juries play as principal actors within it. Also, it is important to note that public managers have been recognized as taking on “quasi-judicial” roles as well (Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’Leary 2005; Rosenbloom 1983). Legal accountability is mediated through a legal system that can enforce strong measures of control by applying the reifi ed laws that are in place.

Market Frame A market frame may be understood by diff erentiating between capital and production markets (Mashaw 2006, 122). Th e profi t- making obligations of businesses dominate private sector account- ability structures (Mulgan 2000). In the private sector, account- ability applies to owners and shareholders who have rights to call the company’s managers to account for the company’s performance, and, secondarily, to customers whose main right is to refuse to purchase (Mulgan 2000, 569). Th us, a market frame of accountabil- ity may be divided into two distinct but interrelated components: shareholder accountability and consumer accountability (Scott 2006). It should be noted, however, that this interpretation of corporate accountability structures does not take into consideration that a broader interpretation of “stakeholder” accountability exists in U.S. constitutional law (Nace 2005)—the role of labor unions and collective bargaining, and more recent considerations of corporate social responsibility and the “triple bottom line” (Fox, Ward, and Howard 2002).

Legal scholars have advanced the “shareholder primacy norm,” through which “[c]orporate directors have a fi duciary duty to make decisions that are in the best interests of the shareholders” (Smith 1998, 278). Shareholders, or in the case of privately owned businesses, owners, are thought to be motivated by the maximiza- tion of profi t. Shareholder accountability calls for the alignment of performance measures with profi tability. Shareholder accountability requirements push companies to undertake the most effi cient set of practices possible in order to maximize profi ts. Shareholders and owners exist as principals within the corporate governance structure and therefore, may be said to exert strong control over the opera- tions of the business.

Consumer accountability is a market-based accountability predicated on the ability of consumers to choose between alternative, compet- ing goods or services. Th rough a consumer’s choice or refusal to

214 Public Administration Review • March | April 2011

(summarized in table 1), ultimately creating hybrid accountabil- ity regimes (Mashaw 2006). Th ese regimes are structured by the sectoral characteristics of network actors, with state actors bringing with them the democratic anchorage associated with representa- tion and citizenship, and private sector actors bringing a market frame of owners and consumers. Th ese regimes are structured as a complex array of vertically and horizontally aligned relationships, some of which persist through the operational characteristics of bureaucracies and collaboratively arranged social networks. Th ere are substantive challenges to defi ning the hybridized accountability regimes of governance networks as the aggregate of discrete account- ability types. We argue that these discrete types combine, comingle, and compete with each other, often forming the basis of trade-off s. Where trade-off s are evident, confusion over which accountability type trumps another is bound to persist, a point articulated by Romzek and Dubnick (1987). We will now draw on this typology to explore the hybrid accountability regimes at work within the gov- ernance networks responsible for the response and recovery activities in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, paying particular attention to the networks used to process requests for assistance.

Accountability and Governance Networks Responses to Hurricane Katrina Th e disaster resulting from the landfall of Hurricane Katrina on Au- gust 29, 2005, was estimated in 2006 to cost $96 billion in current dollars of property damage, 1,330 lost lives, and involved the evacu- ation of 1.1 million people. Eighty percent of New Orleans was sub- merged under 20 feet of water (Derthick 2007, 37). Studies of the governance networks responsible for the maintenance of the levee system highlight the apparent confusion over who had what author- ity in maintaining the complex, patchwork levee system (Derthick 2007, 39). Derthick highlights the confusion that existed among the Orleans Levee District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and elected offi cials over who had responsibility for levee maintenance. It would appear that the failed levee system brings to light the fact that a competent governance network with the chief function of maintaining the levees did not exist in this case.

Derthick observes that some governance networks developed prior to Katrina were eff ective, particularly the network that put together and implemented the “contrafl ow” plan that led to the unidirec- tional fl ow of traffi c out of the city. Between 1 million and 1.2 million people out of a population of 1.4 million were successfully evacuated (Derthick 2007, 38). In the months prior to the landfall, 1.5 million Louisiana Citizen Awareness and Disaster Evacuation guides were distributed through media outlets, the Red Cross, and area Walmarts, Home Depots, and Lowes, pointing to a successful public information campaign mounted through a network involving actors from across sectors. Th e major oversight within the evacua- tion planning and implementation network was the lack of a plan for the evacuation of residents who had no access to transportation in order to fl ee the area (Derthick 2007, 38).

Kiefer and Montjoy observe that “[b]y the summer of 2005, several overlapping networks for disaster management were in place in southeastern Louisiana, largely in response to federal stimuli” (2006, 125). At the interstate level, the Emergency Management Assist- ance Compact (EMAC), essentially the coordinating mechanism between states, mobilized more than 220 diff erent governmental,

placement of control over organizational activities in the hands of the employee with the expertise or special skills to get the job done” (1987, 187). Professional accountability may also be maintained through compliance with profession or industry best practices, rules, or codes of ethics. Professional practice has been equated with ethi- cal behavior, competence, discretion, and responsiveness. Profes- sional accountability is manifested through networked relationships between other professionals and the means by which they associate with one another. Professional accountability is generally premised on the development of weaker measures of control (with the noted exception being the capacity of professions to sanction those in violation of professional codes of conduct or revoke licenses).

Both individual network actors and governance networks as a whole (Agranoff and McGuire 2003) are predicated on the relative strength or weakness of the horizontal ties forged between actors. When two actors enter into a horizontal relationship, they are not beholden to the traditional principal–agent dynamics of vertically arranged relationships. Instead, social network theorists have equat- ed horizontal relationships with cooperative behaviors and norms of trust and reciprocity (Th ompson 2003). Collaborative accountability binds actors as peers or partners (Mashaw 2006). Acar, Guo, and Yang (2008) refer to the existence of accountability between peers as “partnership” or “community” accountability. Even within the most hierarchically arranged organizations, workers interact with each other as peers or partners organized around collective endeav- ors, a fact that is particularly documented within the literature on teamwork and small group behavior (Langfred and Shanley 2001) and discussions of “clan governance” (Ouchi 1980).

Horizontal ties may be understood within the context of social capi- tal and the normative foundations of trust that give shape to social networks. Th ompson describes how trust is a fundamental norm of social networks, observing that it is “established to precisely econo- mize on transactions costs” (2003, 32). He goes on to add that “trust implies an expected action . . . which we cannot monitor in advance, or the circumstances associated with which we cannot directly control. It is a kind of device for coping with freedoms of others. It minimizes the temptation to indulge in purely opportunistic be- havior” (46). However, the application of game theory to the study of cooperative behavior reveals that “the foundation of cooperation is not really trust, but the durability of the relationship.” Axelrod’s study of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma underscores the need for networked actors to challenge such behaviors in an eff ort to bring about cooperative behaviors (1980, 184). He cites how the “durabil- ity” of the relationship is built up over time through what he views as a “trial-and-error learning about possibilities for mutual rewards” and imitation of past successful relationships (1980, 182; see also Hanaki et al. 2007). Th e “reputational capital” of network actors becomes a key element within the establishment of durable, hori- zontally aligned relationships (Kreps and Wilson 1982). Reputation becomes an important element in the bargaining, negotiating, and mutual adjustment activities undertaken in networked relationships (Morris, Morris and Jones 2007, 95). Th e capacity of one collabora- tor to punish a fellow collaborator suggests that horizontal ties may be built on stronger measures of control than previously thought.

We suggest that governance networks will likely draw on a com- bination of some or all of the accountability types identifi ed here

Accountability in Governance Networks 215

A GAO study (2006) of the procedures used to process requests for assistance discussed the relationship between Red Cross and FEMA at length. Each of these fi ndings is described in table 2.

FEMA was not the only coordination node for the fl ow of supplies and services. Th e EMAC network, coordinating largely through state-level emergency management agencies and governors’ offi ces, had challenges pertaining to the channeling of supplies and services to the region as well (Kapucu, Augustin, and Garayev 2009). Waugh notes that “[r]equests for assistance were delayed when governors and their staff s did not understand the EMAC system” (2007, 108), adding that “[p]oor communication between state emergency man- agement offi ces, including governor’s offi ces, local agencies meant poor situational awareness and poor response to local needs. (110). We may view all of these challenges in light of accountability types introduced earlier.

Accountability Failures and Trade-Offs in Governance Networks This exercise reveals that many of the governance networks responsible for the response and recovery needs following the landfall of Hurricane Katrina suffered from failures in account- ability across all types. The general lack of coordination and failure of initiative may be understood as a problem in the representative accountability structures at work. Generally, elected officials, federal, state, and local legislatures, and governmental agencies saw other political actors as chiefly responsible for the coordination and initiative needed to successfully respond to the landfall of a Category 4 hurricane (Forgette, King, and Dettrey 2008; Martinko et al. 2009; Schneider 2008). The resulting fail- ure of initiative led to substantive “intergovernmental challeng- es” (Cigler 2007b). That a disaster of this magnitude had been anticipated, yet local, state, and national elected officials failed to collectively address the visibly crumbling levee system, points to failures in the very checks and balances to be found in a democratic accountability frame.

nonprofi t, and business entities (Kapucu, Augustin, and Garayev 2009). Of the total 66,000 people deployed to the Gulf coast, 6,000 were employed within the fi rst 36 hours of landfall (Waugh 2007, 108). Comfort (2007) estimates that at least 535 diff erent organiza- tions (57 percent of which were public, 16 percent were nonprofi t, and 27 percent were private) were involved in at least some aspect of the response and recovery eff orts. Th ese statistics do not account for the thousands of individual ad hoc rescuers (Brinkley 2006) and emergent response groups (Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, and Hollings- head 2007) who risked their own lives to save their fellow citizens (Brinkley 2006).

However, the House Select Committee that studied the processes and procedures used to coordinate and allocate assistance found the response lacking, identifying the following problems:

• Lack of coordination between organizations across all layers and sectors

• Communication failures in faulty equipment, poor system designs, untrained operators, unmet budget requests, lack of planning, and poor management

• Information gaps across departments and between jurisdictions • Inadequate training, particularly joint training between groups • Delays in medical care as a result of “deployment confusion,

uncertainty about mission assignments, and red tape” • Underutilization of the private sector, especially with respect to

evacuation needs • Lack of emergency and temporary shelter • Failure of initiative “at all levels [of government] to take a

proactive approach to the crisis” (Ink 2006, 801–2).

Reports distributed by the White House, the House Select Com- mittee, the Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO), and some analytical case studies (GAO 2006; Ink 2006; Kiefer and Montjoy 2006; Roberts 2008) all single out the Federal Emergency Man- agement Agency (FEMA) as the “lead organization” during the response and recovery phases of crisis. However, FEMA had lost experienced, professional staff during the lead up to Katrina (Cigler 2007b, 69). FEMA also removed itself from most mitigation and preparation activities associated with hurricane planning in the years leading up to the summer of 2005 (Cigler 2007b). Once Katrina made landfall, FEMA was chiefl y responsible for coordinating the fl ow of supplies and services to the region, including the procure- ment of buses to be used to remove victims stranded at the New Orleans Super Dome and Convention Center. Th e buses, however, failed to come because “they had to be procured from contractors all over the country, hundreds or even thousands of miles away” (Derthick 2007, 42). Derthick concludes that “FEMA did not know what it could deliver or when and made promises that were unreliable” (42). Th is held true not only for the buses, but also for the supplies that FEMA did control: generators, food, water, and ice (42). Figure 1 illustrates the standard procedures employed to respond to requests for assistance used during the crisis.

As the lead organization within the response and recovery activities, FEMA was responsible for approving requests and tasking network actors with fulfi lling the requests. Th e Red Cross was responsible for taking the requests that fi ltered up to it through local government and other voluntary organizations.

Suppliers of Supplies, Equipment and Services

Red Cross Processes requests for assistance

State Governments Meets needs if able or requests

federal assistance

People in Need

Voluntary Organizations Identify needs and request assistance

Local Government Agencies Identify needs and drequest assistance

FEMA Approves requests and tasks

agencies to fill requests

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce (2006).

Figure 1 Standard Process for Requesting Assistance

216 Public Administration Review • March | April 2011

Th e role of the for-profi t, private business sector in the response and recovery eff orts following Hurricane Katrina should not be understated (Cigler 2007a, 4). As victims of and responders to disasters, local businesses and regional and national corporations had a key role to play in providing supplies and services needed for the response and recovery eff orts. However, Th e House Select Committee studying the response and recovery eff orts cited failures in the delivery of key resources from private vendors (Ink 2006). Subsequently, reports of profi teering were cited (Dreier 2006). Th e failure to have predetermined contractual arrangements with pro- viders of emergency goods and services may have exacerbated the problems associated with the sluggishness of response. Th e systems in place for Gulf Coast states may be compared to those in place in Florida. Kapucu’s (2008) comparison of these systems suggests that Florida benefi ted from predetermined contracts with providers of goods and services. Shareholder accountability plays a major role in determining the extent to which private businesses are willing to enter into such agreements. With the proliferation of “just-in- time” inventories, the need to maintain effi cient levels of inven- tories may compete with the need to stock inventories in cases of emergencies (Cigler 2007a). A trade-off between shareholder interests and citizen interests may need to be weighed in this case. Ultimately, distinctions between donated goods and services, and making goods and services available for purchase and contracts should be made.

Consumer accountability often does not exist within emergency contexts. Victims seeking assistance often do not have the luxury of fi nding alternative suppliers of needed goods and services. Th ere are no means for consumers to “vote with their feet” or pocketbook

in cases of emergencies. Th e inherent mo- nopolies associated with response and recovery eff orts essentially render consumers impotent. Institutional racism (Cigler 2007b; Stivers 2007), class and social vulnerability (Forgette, King, and Dettrey 2008; Jurkiewicz 2007), and environmental vulnerability (Forgette, King, and Dettrey 2008) weakened the capacity for the consumers of public goods and service to exercise their individual and collective will.

Stivers (2007), Jurkiewicz (2007), and others (Bullard and Wright 2009) have examined the critical roles that institutional racism and classism played in undermining the political authority of the poor, black residents who made up the disproportionately high percentage of the most eff ected victims. Th ey argue that there is a relationship between the perceived powerlessness of this population and the widespread failure in citizen accountability. In essence, poverty and racism led to the social and environmental vulnerability of certain segments of the population, which likely contributed to the weakening of citizen accountability in this case. A number of studies have recently been published looking at the relationship that race and other variables play in shaping how citizens ascribed blame in the case of Katrina. Forgette, King, and Dettrey (2008, 686) found that those who were most environ- mentally and socially vulnerable to disasters such as Katrina were more likely to ascribe blame for the failed responses to the federal government. Other studies have concluded that citizens’ prior partisan affi liations and political ideologies had a great degree of infl uence over how citizens ascribed blame in both a regional (Forgette, King, and Dettrey 2008) and a national (Malhotra 2008) context. Th e factors of race, class, and vulnerability, as well as partisanship and political ideology (Gomez and Wilson 2008), complicate the capacity that citizen accountability can play in instances such as these.

Th e general lack of coordination may also be considered a break- down in legal accountability, particularly when the matter of contracting practices are taken into consideration. Understood within the context of the system used to process requests, the failure to have predetermined contractual arrangements with providers of emergency goods and services in place led to confusion regarding which contractors to work with, how to structure these contracts, and who had authority over them. Ironically, the requirements to follow existing contractual procedures, as in the case of the procurement of buses, suggests ways in which existing legal accountability structures may get in the way of expediency, particularly in times of crisis.

Table 2 Failures in Request for Assistance: FEMA–Red Cross Relations

• Failure to clarify roles and responsibilities. Confl icts arose between FEMA and the Red Cross regarding the role of the FEMA ESF-6 coordinator and to whom the nonprofi t Red Cross should report. As a result, the two organizations spent time negotiating operating procedures rather than focusing solely on coordinating mass care services in the early days of the hurricane response effort (GAO 2006).

• Failure to have a standard process for requesting assistance. Although the system for processing requests outlined in fi gure 1 was predetermined, the mecha- nisms for fi ltering requests from local governments and voluntary organizations to the Red Cross were not fully developed ahead of time (GAO 2006, 11). The failure to articulate procedures within this stage of the processing system led to a great deal of confusion between actors within the network.

• Rotation of Red Cross personnel led to a lack of continuity. The Red Cross relies heavily on volunteer personnel, many of whom take leaves of absence from their workplace to devote time to public service. The average stint for Red Cross volunteers in disasters of this nature range from a few days to a few weeks. Volunteer staff members were placed in key positions within the processing system. With no clear system in place for fi ltering requests from the public to FEMA, it was left to individual Red Cross volunteers to devise informal means of getting FEMA’s attention and seeing to it that requests were processed in a timely manner. As volunteers cycled out of these key positions, their knowledge and investment in seeing that these requests were processed left with them (GAO 2006).

• Failure to involve Red Cross offi cials in important policy meetings. Frequent “policy meetings” were convened within the FEMA command center. During these meetings, FEMA and other key government offi cials discussed the response and recovery efforts and addressed problems. Although Red Cross offi cials were allowed to attend these meetings, they were not permitted to participate in them (GAO 2006, 13), resulting in missed opportunities to coordinate responses and engage in joint problem solving.

• Failure to have predetermined contractual arrangements with providers of emergency goods and services. The GAO found that “[t]here was inadequate planning and preparation in anticipating requirements for needed goods and services…, a lack of clearly communicated responsibilities for contracting activities across agencies and jurisdictions…[and], insuffi cient numbers and inadequate deployment of personnel to provide for effective contractor oversight” (GAO 2006, executive summary).

Consumer accountability often does not exist within emergency

contexts. Victims seeking assistance often do not have the

luxury of fi nding alternative suppliers of needed goods and

services.

Accountability in Governance Networks 217

also be considered within the context of the eff ectiveness of horizon- tal ties (Ink 2006). Squabbles over jurisdictions and responsibilities may be considered problems between peers or partners (a matter of collaborative accountability).

Th e failure to clarify roles and responsibilities, as in the case of the ESF-6 coordinator, may be understood as a discrepancy between FEMA and the Red Cross as to which accountability mechanisms were at work. In the traditional command and control system, FEMA edicts regarding its view of the chain of command would not be questioned. However, this arrangement may also be framed as a “partnership,” with Red Cross personnel having a say in how best to organize the systems in place to process claims. Th e GAO’s observa- tion that key Red Cross offi cials were excluded from active partici- pation in important policy meetings coordinated by FEMA suggests confl icting perceptions of the Red Cross’s relationship to FEMA. Moynihan’s (2009) study of incident command systems is relevant here and may be used as a framework to analyze the proper govern- ance structures needed in times of emergency. With the turnover of Red Cross and FEMA personnel, few opportunities existed for FEMA and Red Cross workers to build cooperative, durable rela- tionships. Recalling Axelrod’s iterated prisoner’s dilemma, neither party in these exchanges expected to continue interacting with the other. Th e incentives to cooperate did not exist. Putting people in charge of important roles and functions that require extensive time and follow through into temporary roles would appear to be a recipe for systems failure. In the case of Florida’s emergency management system, existing networks of service providers spanning all three sectors are often maintained over time, creating the context for the establishment of durable relationships (Kapucu 2008).

As a result of our application of the governance network account- ability framework to the failed responses following landfall of Hur- ricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast, we are left to draw a number of conclusions concerning accountability within emergency manage- ment networks.

1. Strike a balance between bureaucratic and collaborative accountability structures in designing emergency management networks. Studies of eff ective agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard (Baker and Refsgaard 2007) and more resilient regions such as Flor- ida (Kapucu 2008) point to the important role that collaborative accountability plays in emergency management situations. Others have suggested that greater centralization of command in the early phases of emergency response is needed, whether it is understood as a centralized incident command center (Moynihan 2009) or more broadly as an enhanced capacity of the federal government to exert control (Jurkiewicz and O’Keefe 2009). Th e FEMA and Red Cross arrangements discussed in this article suggest that the eff ective “mixed-form” governance networks (Koliba, Meek, and Zia 2010) implicated in emergency management situations will be structured through a combination of command and control and collaborative administrative authorities. Such hybridized structures should be clarifi ed and built up over time. Moynihan (2009) describes this as the “network diversity” of emergency response.

2. Focus on developing the collaborative management skills of emergency management professionals. Having interviewed some key emergency management professionals implicated in the response

Breakdowns in the bureaucratic accountability structures can be rec- ognized in the general observations concerning the lack of coordina- tion, gaps in information, communication failures, slow delivery of goods and services, lack of clarity about roles and authority, and failure of initiative (Ink 2006). Within the context of the systems used to process requests for assistance, the problematic principal– agent relationship between FEMA and the Red Cross may be cited. Th e controversy regarding the place of the FEMA ESF-6 (Emer- gency Support Function) coordinator within the chain of command may be construed as FEMA adhering to bureaucratic accountability structures too rigidly, as the time it took to negotiate this chain of command resulted in serious delays. Th is phenomenon also appears to be the case in the delays associated with the federal Transporta- tion Security Administration’s requirements to screen all equipment, supplies, and personnel that needed to be airlifted into the region (Derthick 2007).

Th e turnover of key Red Cross and FEMA personnel made it very diffi cult to sustain institutional knowledge, rules, and procedures. Long-term volunteers tend to go through stages of development that ultimately led to substantial fatigue (Wymer and Starnes 2001). A recent study of the recruitment and retention of Red Cross volun- teers in one local chapter suggests that it is only through long-term service that volunteers “appreciate the [broader] organization’s mission and principle and fi nd their allegiance to the organization as a whole” (Hustinx and Handy 2009, 202). We can surmise that in situations in which there is a need for a strong command and con- trol structure, giving short-term volunteers with little understanding or appreciation of organizational mission substantial administrative responsibilities is extremely problematic.

Th e loss of key career emergency management professionals within FEMA was cited as a major challenge facing the response and recovery eff orts (Kettl 2005), leading to a breakdown of professional accountability structures. A lack of expertise, inadequate training of key emergency management personnel, and the failure of initia- tive may all be linked to a dearth of professional expertise and, by inference, professional accountability. Th e turnover in Red Cross and FEMA personnel and, in some cases, the lack of professional expertise of those processing claims for assistance may be viewed in terms of professional accountability.

Garnett and Kouzmin observe that FEMA director Michael Brown failed to “widen his decision circle,” exhibiting signs of “group think” (2007, 174). At the same time, the Homeland Security Operations Center and New Orleans Mayor’s Offi ce suff ered from “information bias” that contributed to poor situational awareness (174–75). A study of the administrative performance of the EMAC in Mississippi and Louisiana found a dearth of professional develop- ment training for key emergency management personnel (Kapucu, Augustin, and Garayev 2009, 21). Th ese oversights suggest the fail- ure of certain network actors to involve, and therefore be account- able to, professional emergency management practitioners.

Finally, the failures in the governance networks associated with the response and recovery eff orts need to be considered within the context of failures in collaborative accountability. Th e House Select Committee’s observations regarding the lack of coordination, com- munication failures, information gaps, and failures of initiative may

218 Public Administration Review • March | April 2011

accountability regimes presented here. Th e extent to which pub- lic–private partnerships are shaped through grants, contracts, or reciprocal partnership agreements needs to be evaluated based on the types of resources each actor brings to the network. Implications for the accountability regimes that guide network activities need to be monitored.

Th e ongoing conversation within the fi eld of public administration about the lessons learned from the case of Hurricane Katrina has not, until now, been couched in terms of the lack of, or trade-off s between, accountability structures. Th e clearest demarcation of such trade-off s in this case occurs between bureaucratic and collaborative accountability structures, which may be construed as a matter of vertical versus horizontal alignments. Th e tensions that arose be- tween the various levels of government as to who had authority and responsibility for what functions may be understood in the context of this trade-off .

Conclusion Just as Romzek and Dubnick’s study of the Challenger disaster yielded insights into the accountability frameworks at work within government agencies, we hope that this article has shed light on the complex realities at work within governance networks involving ac- tors spanning sectors and geographic scale. Th e public administration fi eld has an important and unique role to play within the analysis of all forms of governance networks because of its central concern for the quality of democratic anchorage that exists within and around them. Ascertaining the public value of such networks needs to be considered not only as a matter of qualitatively and quantitatively defi ned outputs and outcomes, but also in terms of the accountabil- ity regimes in place to ensure that the public interest is being served.

By studying the range of explicit standards and implicit norms that shape the hybridized accountability regimes of governance networks, researchers may better understand how accountability structures impact network dynamics. Th e extent to which the critical actors

operating within governance network under- stand to whom accounts need to be rendered can be determined through the traditional tools of observation and survey found in the social sciences. We believe that the governance network accountability framework introduced here can be factored into “agent-based” models (North and Macal 2007). We also believe that the trade-off problems that are apparent here can be modeled as complexity issues because emergent structures and function arise when trade-off preferences are not clearly defi ned in law, constitution, or practice.

Acknowledgments Th e authors wish to thank the editors of Public Administration Review and the reviewers of this article for their thoughtful feedback.

References Acar, Muhittin, Chao Guo, and Kaifeng Yang. 2008. Accountability When Hierar-

chical Authority is Absent: Views from Public Private Partnership Practitioners. American Review of Public Administration 38(1): 3–23.

and recovery eff orts pertaining to Hurricane Katrina, Getha-Taylor (2007) underscores the need to focus on improving the collabo- rative capacities of emergency management administrators and volunteers. She asserts that public managers in emergency manage- ment networks need to “lead by example,” “focus on relationships,” engage in more training in collaborative management skills, and recognize when and where collaboration leads to eff ective outcomes. It is imperative that collaborative managers operating in emergency management networks become aware of the skills and knowledge needed to build trusting and durable relationships with fellow col- laborators, and therefore a more robust governance network.

3. Rethink federalism in emergency management? Th e accounta- bility challenges associated with the response and recovery networks implicated in Hurricane Katrina have been framed as questions pertaining to federalism (Birkland and Waterman 2008; Roberts 2008). In a recent “Letter to the President-Elect Regarding Katrina,” Jurkiewicz and O’Keefe (2009) assert that the political culture of Louisiana is so problematic that strong federal intervention is called for if a repeat of the Katrina disaster is to be avoided. Th e place- ment of FEMA in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been identifi ed as one of the major contributors to the agency’s failed performance (Birkland and Waterman 2008; Roberts 2008). Whether FEMA ultimately stays in or is removed from the depart- ment, the need to build the agency’s collaborative capacity has been widely noted (Edwards 2009; Getha-Taylor 2007; Roberts 2008). Describing what a “new FEMA” must do, Edwards observes that it “must have the capacity to link to state and local agencies and sup- port the increased capacity to handle their own problems” (2009, 66). Birkland and Waterman (2008) distinguish between “excep- tional” and “normal” disaster situations, suggesting that a stronger federal role is needed when disasters reach a certain scale. Th e need to mobilize national resources in order to meet the needs of stricken regions would appear to call for a clearly articulated and implement- ed federal role built on its capacity to collaborate with states, local governments, nonprofi ts, and businesses.

4. Have elected representatives avoid playing the “blame game.” In a study of citizens’ attri- bution of blame following Hurricane Katrina, Maestas et al. (2008) found that the messages of blame framed by journalists and elected representatives across local, state, and federal government played a signifi cant role in how citizens ascribed blame. Th ey conclude that “in systems where policy in the same area is carried out by multiple levels of government, political actors [elected representatives] have incentives to shift blame to actors at other levels, further complicating the public’s task in assigning blame to the appropriate targets” (2008, 609). As long as these kinds of dynamics persist, the capacity of policy makers and public administrators to approach emergency management from the kind of systems perspectives needed is severely undermined.

5. Deepen our understanding of the role of public–private part- nerships in emergency management networks. Th e line between humanitarian aid, purchased goods, and contracted services needs to be more clearly drawn and evaluated based on the hybridized

By studying the range of explicit standards and implicit

norms that shape the hybridized accountability regimes

of governance networks, researchers may better

understand how accountability structures impact network

dynamics.

Accountability in Governance Networks 219

Agranoff , Robert. 2007. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Agranoff , Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2007. Collaborative Governance in Th eory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 18(4): 543–71. Appleby, Paul H. 1943. Government Is Diff erent. In Classics of Public Administration, 5th ed., edited by Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkes, 131–35.

Belmont, CA: Th omson/Wadsworth, 2004. Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schön. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Th eory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Axelrod, Robert. 1984. Th e Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Baker, Daniel, and Karen Refsgaard. 2007. Institutional Development and Scale Matching in Disaster Response Management. Ecological Economics 63(2–3): 331–43. Bardach, Eugene, and Cara Lesser. 1996. Accountability in Human Services Collaboratives—For What? And to Whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory

6(2): 197–224. Behn, Robert D. 2001. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O’Leary. 2005. Th e New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work

of Government. Public Administration Review 65(5): 547–58. Birkland, Th omas, and Sarah Waterman. 2008. Is Federalism the Reason for Policy Failure in Hurricane Katrina? Publius: Th e Journal of Federalism 38(4): 692–714. Brinkley, Douglas. 2006. Th e Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. New York: Morrow. Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Melissa Middleton Stone. 2006. Th e Design and Implementation of Cross-sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature.

Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 44–55. Bullard, Robert, and Beverly Wright. 2009. Th e Color of Toxic Debris: Th e Racial Injustice in the Flow of Poison Th at Followed the Flood. American Prospect, March, A9–23. Chandler, Ralph C., and Jack C. Plano. 1982. Th e Public Administration Dictionary. New York: Wiley. Cigler, Beverly A. 2007a. Hurricane Katrina: Two Intergovernmental Challenges. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Academy of Certifi ed Public Managers,

Madison, WI, September 8–12. ———. 2007b. Th e “Big Questions” of Katrina and the 2005 Great Flood of New Orleans. Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 64–76. Comfort, Louise K. 2007. Crisis Management in Hindsight: Cognition, Communication, Coordination, and Control. Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 189–97. Cooper, Terry L. 1984. Citizenship and Professionalism in Public Administration. In Democracy, Bureaucracy, and Administration, edited by Camilla Stivers, 266–79. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, 2001. Derthick, Martha. 2007. Where Federalism Didn’t Fail. Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 36–47. Dreier, Peter. 2006. Katrina and Power in America. Urban Aff airs Review 41(4): 528–49. Edwards, Frances L. 2009. Obstacles to Disaster Recovery. Th e Public Manager 37(4): 66–71. Fayol, Henri. 1949. General and Industrial Management. Trans. Constance Storrs. London: Pitman. Forgette, Richard, Marvin King, and Bryan Dettrey. 2008. Race, Hurricane Katrina, and Government Satisfaction: Examining the Role of Race in Assessing Blame. Publius:

Th e Journal of Federalism 38(4): 671–91. Fox, Tom, Halina Ward, and Bruce Howard. 2002. Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: A Baseline Study. Washington, DC: World Bank. Fung, Archon. 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 66–75. Garnett, James L., and Alexander Kouzmin. 2007. A. Communicating throughout Katrina: Competing and Complementary Conceptual Lenses on Crisis Communication.

Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 171–88. Getha-Taylor, Heather. 2007. Collaborative Governance: Lessons from Katrina. Public Manager 36(3): 7–11. Gomez, Brad T., and J. Matthew Wilson. 2008. Political Sophistication and Attributions of Blame in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina. Publius: Th e Journal of Federalism 38(4):

633–50. Goodnow, Frank J. 1900. Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York: Russell & Russell. Guo, Chao, and Muhittin Acar. 2005. Understanding Collaboration among Nonprofi t Organizations: Combining Resource Dependency, Institutional, and Network Perspec-

tives. Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34(3): 340–61. Hanaki, Nobuyuki, Alexander Peterhansl, Peter S. Dodds, and Duncan J. Watts. 2007. Cooperation in Evolving Social Networks. Management Science 53(7): 1036–50. Hill, Michael, and Peter Hupe. 2006. Implementing Public Policy: An Introduction to the Study of Operational Governance. London: Sage Publications. Hustinx, Lesley, and Femida Handy. 2009. Where Do I Belong? Volunteer Attachment in a Complex Organization (Red Cross). Administration in Social Work 33(2):

202–21. Ink, Dwight. 2006. An Analysis of the House Select Committee and White House Reports on Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review 66(6): 800–807. Jurkiewicz, Carole L. 2007. Louisiana’s Ethical Culture and Its Eff ect on the Administrative Failures Following Katrina. Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 57–63. Jurkiewicz, Carole L., and Sean O’Keefe. 2009. A Letter to the President-Elect Regarding Katrina. Public Integrity 11(1): 79–90. Kapucu, Naim. 2008. Culture of Preparedness: Household Disaster Preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 17(4): 526–35. Kapucu, Naim, Maria-Elena Augustin, and Vener Garayev. 2009. Interstate Partnerships in Emergency Management: Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)

in Response to Catastrophic Disasters. Public Administration Review 69(2): 297–313. Kearns, Kevin P. 1996. Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Nonprofi t Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kettl, Donald F. 2005. Th e Worst Is Yet to Come: Lessons from September 11 and Hurricane Katrina. Report no. 05-01, Fels Government Research Service. Kickert, Walter J. M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop Koppenjan, eds. 1997. Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kiefer, John J., and Robert S. Montjoy. 2006. Incrementalism Before the Storm: Network Performance for the Evacuation of New Orleans. Special issue, Public Administration

Review 66: 122–30. Klijn, Erik-Hans, and Chris Skelcher. 2007. Democracy and Governance Networks: Compatible or Not? Public Administration 85(3): 587–609. Koliba, Christopher, Jack W. Meek, and Asim Zia. 2010. Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Kreps, David M., and Robert Wilson. 1982. Reputation and Imperfect Information. Journal of Economic Th eory 27(2): 253–79.

220 Public Administration Review • March | April 2011

Langfred, Claus W., and Mark T. Shanley. 2001. Small Group Research: Autonomous Teams and Progress on Issues of Context and Level of Analysis. In Handbook of Organi- zational Behavior, edited by Robert T. Golembiewski, 81–111. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Linder, Stephen H., and Pauline Vallaincourt Rosenau. 2000. Mapping the Terrain of the Public-Private Policy Partnership. In Public–Private Policy Partnerships, edited by Pauline Vallaincourt Rosenau, 1–18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Maestas, Cherie D., Lonna Rae Atkeson, Th omas Croom, and Lisa A. Bryant. 2008. Shifting the Blame: Federalism, Media, and Public Assignment of Blame Following Hurricane Katrina. Publius: Th e Journal of Federalism 38(4): 609–32.

Majchrzak, Ann, Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, and Andrea B. Hollingshead. 2007. Coordinating Expertise among Emergent Groups Responding to Disasters. Organization Science 18(1): 147–61.

Malhotra, Neil. 2008. Partisan Polarization and Blame Attribution in a Federal System: Th e Case of Hurricane Katrina. Publius: Th e Journal of Federalism 38(4): 651–70. Martinko, Mark J., Denise M. Breaux, Arthur D. Martinez, James Summers, and Paul Harvey. 2008. Hurricane Katrina and Attributions of Responsibility. Organizational

Dynamics 38(1): 52–63. Mashaw, Jerry L. 2006. Accountability and Institutional Design: Some Th oughts on the Grammar of Governance. In Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences,

edited by Michael W. Dowdle, 115–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith G. Provan. 1998. Principles for Controlling Agents: Th e Political Economy of Network Structure. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Th eory 8(2): 203–22. Miraftab, Faranak. 2005. Public–Private Partnerships: Th e Trojan Horse of Neoliberal Development? Journal of Planning Education and Research 24(1): 89–101. Morris, John C., Elizabeth D. Morris, and Dale M. Jones. 2007. Reaching for the Philosopher’s Stone: Contingent Coordination and the Military’s Response to Hurricane

Katrina. Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 94–106. Moynihan, Donald P. 2009. Th e Network Governance of Crisis Response: Case Studies of Incident Command Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory

19(4): 895–915. Mulgan, Richard. 2000. Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept? Public Administration 78(3): 555–73. Nace, Ted. 2005. Gangs of America: Th e Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. North, Michael J., and Charles M. Macal. 2007. Managing Business Complexity: Discovering Strategic Solutions with Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. New York: Oxford

University Press. O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr., ed. 2000. American Intergovernmental Relations: Foundations, Perspectives, and Issues. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Ouchi, William G. 1980. Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans. Administrative Science Quarterly. 25(1): 557–82. Page, Stephen. 2004. Measuring Accountability for Results in Interagency Collaboratives. Public Administration Review 64(5): 591–606. Posner, Paul L. 2002. Accountability Challenges of Th ird-Party Government. In Th e Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, edited by Lester M. Salamon,

523–51. New York: Oxford University Press. Provan, Keith G., and Patrick Kenis. 2008. Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, And Eff ectives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory

18(2): 229–52 Radin, Beryl A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Refl exivity and Accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Roberts, Patrick S. 2008. Dispersed Federalism as a New Regional Governance for Homeland Security. Publius: Th e Journal of Federalism 38(3): 416–44. Romzek, Barbara S., and Melvin J. Dubnick. 1987. Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. In Democracy, Bureaucracy, and Administration,

edited by Camilla Stivers, 182–204. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001. Rosenbloom, David H. 1983. Public Administrative Th eory and the Separation of Powers. In Classics of Public Administration, 5th ed., edited by Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C.

Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkes, 446–57. Belmont, CA: Th omson/Wadsworth, 2004. Salamon, Lester M., ed. 2002. Th e Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press. Schneider, Saundra. 2008. Who’s to Blame? (Mis) Perceptions of the Intergovernmental Response to Disasters. Publius: Th e Journal of Federalism 38(4): 715–38. Scott, Colin. 2006. Spontaneous Accountability. Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, edited by Michael W. Dowdle, 174–94. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Smith, D. Gordon. 1998. Th e Shareholder Primacy Norm. Journal of Corporation Law 23: 277–323. Sørensen, Eva, and Jacob Torfi ng. 2005. Th e Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks. Scandinavian Political Studies 28(3): 195–218. Stivers, Camilla. 2007. “So Poor and So Black”: Hurricane Katrina, Public Administration, and the Issue of Race. Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 48–56. Stone, Deborah. 2002. Policy Paradox: Th e Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton. Th ompson, Grahame F. 2003. Between Hierarchies and Markets: Th e Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO). 2006. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Coordination between FEMA and Red Cross Should be Improved for 2006 Season. Washing-

ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce. GAO-06-712. Waugh, William L. 2007. EMAC, Katrina, and the Governors of Louisiana and Mississippi. Special issue, Public Administration Review 67: 107–13. Wymer, Walter W., Jr. and Becky J. Starnes. 2001. Conceptual Foundations and Practical Guidelines for Retaining Volunteer Organizations: Part II. In Marketing Communica-

tions for Local Nonprofi t Organizations, edited by Donald R. Self, Walter W. Wymer, Jr., and Teri Kline Henley, 97–117. London: Haworth Press.