Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The institutional structures and processes of emergency management have been infused with ideas of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) and the so-called all-hazard approach in various countries since the mid-1980s. China’s new emergency management system has moved to the direction of a more CEM-like system, though some experts advocate an even more comprehensive system. This article examines the applicability of three popular CEM principles in the Chinese context: all-hazard, all-phase and all-stakeholder involvement. We argue that (1) an all-hazard coordinating ministry was established for a different reason; (2) integrating all-phase management (especially mitigation phase) should not only be applied in post-catastrophes reconstructions, but also in prior disaster mitigation phases; (3) too much stake has been imposed on individual leaders in vertical governmental relations which hinders opportunities on trial and error learning after an emergency. Finally, we try to contribute to the extensions of the CEM concept after comparing applications in different political and administrative contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: