Abstract The article aims to present a conceptual framework for analyzing the politics of governing crises. This is achieved through the identification of three ideal types: “governing during the crisis,” “governing the crisis,” and “governing by the crisis.” The core of the article’s argument is that the function of political actors in determining the definition of a crisis is paramount. It is demonstrated that crises are not objective phenomena; rather, they are constructed through processes of interpretation, framing, and strategic narration. The different politics of governing crises reflect different actors’ assumptions about threat, urgency, and uncertainty, and lead to different policy trajectories and types of change. These paths range from reversion (a return to a previous state, thus no change) to normalization (marginal change, adaptation—i.e., intermediate changes) and acceleration (major transformation). These governing logics reveal how crises are used to justify political inaction, technocratic management, or sweeping reform. The article’s integration of insights from public policy and crisis management is a significant contribution to ongoing debates on crisis meaning-making, legitimacy, and institutional change. It also introduces the special issue with an analytical lens that offers a comprehensive understanding of how crises reshape policy and politics.
Capano et al. (Fri,) studied this question.