International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

A critical junctures approach to disaster recovery policies – an idea whose

time has come?
Jana Blahak
Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Otto-Adam-Straße 5, 78467, Konstanz, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Analysing disaster recovery, understood as a complex process that spans multiple disaster risk reduction (DRR)
Critical juncture activities [1], is an ambitious undertaking, that requires a broad set of instruments to capture all relevant di-
Resilience mensions [2]. This paper proposes that a critical juncture approach, as used in institutional analysis [3, 4], can be
Disaster
a useful addition to existing approaches to analyse the process of disaster recovery. In contrast to concepts like
Recovery
Policy Change Frameworks
focusing events [5], the concept of critical junctures allows to gauge the impact of institutional legacies through
Focusing events longer timespans [4] and is, thereby, especially useful in the effort to better understand long-term trajectories of
recovery policies. To assess this claim, a cursory literature review was conducted to examine the approaches used
thus far by social scientists to research disaster recovery and the new critical juncture approach. Subsequently, a
short illustrative case study was used to demonstrate some first applications of the critical juncture approach.
This process-tracing analysis confirms that examining critical junctures helps to identify long-term trends in
disaster recovery policies and how they relate to the institutional dimension of the process.

1. Introduction
Recently, there has been a push in the DRR literature to approach
disaster recovery as part of the broader efforts to enhance community
resilience1 [11], as opposed to simply recovering from short-term im-
pacts in terms of repairing the damages and emergency relief activities
[1,2,12,13]. This shift in the understanding of disaster recovery requires
a corresponding change in the approach to the analysis of the process
that allows the capture of these developments. Social scientists have
been at the forefront in this context (e.g. [14]). This has lent new im-
pulses to the thinking on how to approach the analysis of disaster re-
covery processes (e.g. [1,15,16]). Yet, some implications – especially
regarding aspects of temporality – of this broader understanding of the
disaster recovery process have not been conceptualised.
One of the reasons for the above lacuna, this paper argues, is that the
social science concepts used by the DRR research community to describe
the disaster recovery process draw from a limited body of literature.
Concepts that focus on the specific ‘attention-grabbing’ quality of events
and how they relate to a policy change, like the concept of focusing
events,2 are well represented (e.g. [18–20]). In contrast, approaches that
are more focused on the dynamics of the disaster recovery process that
unfold over longer periods – like the trajectory of DRR planning policies
– and use concepts that help to structure such analyses are still sparse (e.
g. [12]). It is argued in this paper that analytical approaches using the
concept of critical junctures – which has its origin in the study of critical
periods in the historical development of institutions [21] – is one way
that would facilitate a more refined understanding of the broader,
temporal dynamics of the process of disaster recovery (compare with
Fig. 1). The intent is not to ‘take sides’ in the theoretical literature on
critical junctures, even though significant disagreement still abounds
regarding their exact nature and appropriate methodologies to apply [4]
but aims to use the new impulses to diversify analytical insights into
disaster recovery dynamics.
The working assumption that critical juncture approaches can pro-
vide new impulses for studying the process of disaster recovery is based
on several observations. First, one distinguishing feature of the critical
juncture approach is the ability to account for “[…] when something
happens in order to establish whether and how much causal force it

E-mail address: jana.blahak@uni-konstanz.de.

1
It should be noted that, in general, resilience as a concept is not exclusively used to refer to the community level, but is used in different contexts [6–10].
2
“An event that is sudden, relatively rare, can be reasonably defined as harmful or revealing the possibility of potentially greater future harms, inflicts harms or
suggests potential harms that are or could be concentrated on a definable geographical area or community of interest, and that is known to policy makers and the
public virtually simultaneously” [17].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102164
Received 30 September 2020; Received in revised form 8 February 2021; Accepted 28 February 2021
Available online 16 March 2021
2212-4209/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Blahak
Fig. 1. Different analytical foci when studying trajectory of disaster recovery policies.
exercises […]” [22]. While this determination sounds trivial at first
glance, historical researchers have shown for a long time that the effect
of timing and sequence of events can be decisive to understand the
causal impact of a decision (e.g. [21]), which has also been recognized
when analysing political processes [103]. While most DRR researchers
recognize the importance of the temporal dimension (e.g. [16,23]), they
do not have the analytical clarity regarding these long-term temporal
dynamics as provided by the critical juncture approach. Also, there have
recently been calls for more explicit consideration of the institutional
dimensions of disaster recovery [1].3 For this purpose, the critical
juncture approach, where the focus is explicitly on institutions as central
units of analysis, promises to be uniquely instructive [3,4]. A deeper
understanding of the causal mechanisms influencing institutional
change – be it historical legacies [4] or the contingent contextual effects
of time and place [25] – can help to better understand the trajectory of
recovery efforts.
In sum, this paper aims at providing researchers with conceptual
tools that help to go beyond the traditional approaches to disaster re-
covery, and enhance current approaches engaged in the ambitious
project to reflect the complexity of the disaster recovery process (e.g. [1,
26,27]) through better conceptualising the long-term dynamics of the
disaster recovery process that are related to institutional factors.
The following is the structure of this paper: first, the new advances in
disaster recovery based on, among other things, resilience thinking [28],
are presented. Thereafter, the policy frameworks (and their distinct
analytical perspectives) that are most frequently referred to in analyses
of the disaster recovery process are surveyed. Then, the critical juncture
approach is introduced with the intention of a subsequent investigation
into whether critical junctures, utilised as a conceptual tool, can addi-
tionally contribute to research the disaster recovery process. The critical
juncture applications are tested and discussed with the help of an
illustrative case analysis of the disaster recovery process in the city of La
Plata, Argentina.
2. Overview of the current state of the disaster recovery
literature
In the study of efforts to reduce disaster risk, an inherent tension
between the interest in hazard events and the need to look beyond the
individual shock events to explain what causes the disaster has to be
recognized [20]. The urge to understand specific disaster events is often
the starting point of research projects in the DRR community – leading
3 6
The institutional dimension is vital for integrating long-term planning into
disaster recovery policies [24], which gain importance when regarding the
disaster recovery process as embedded in long-term efforts to achieve com-
munity resilience [13].
2
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164
with questions on how such events can be prevented, mitigated, or
managed (e.g. [29,30]). Simultaneously, there is a shared understanding
that successful disaster risk management4 goes beyond reacting to sin-
gular events, which is exemplified by resilience thinking lens to DRR
[31].5 Defined as “a system’s capacity to anticipate and reduce, cope
with, respond to and recover from external disruptions” ([31]: 453),
resilience as the broader objective of DRR emphasises the need to
actively manage disaster risk constantly and not just react to singular
disaster events [33]. This capacity is then seen as a prerequisite for the
even broader goal of sustainable development (cf. [34,35]) which is,
among others, also reflected in the UN sustainable development goals
[36].
Seeing recovery as a part of broader efforts to achieve resilience [1,2,
8] has influenced its following definition:
“The differential process of restoring, rebuilding, and reshaping the
physical, social, economic, and natural environment through pre-
event planning and post-event actions that enhance the resilience
and adaptive capacity of assistance networks to effectively address
recovery needs that span rapid and slow onset hazards and disasters”
([1]: 596).6
However, some implications flowing from this more holistic defini-
tion of disaster recovery (that includes more than short-term rebuilding
efforts) have not yet been addressed in empirical analyses. In the
following paragraphs, some gaps between theoretical aspiration and
practical application are highlighted:
First, the above definition reflects that disaster recovery is consid-
ered as a complex process that spans across time and includes more than
just the period after a hazard event. This would suggest that analyses
need to acknowledge that disaster recovery is influenced by factors that
go beyond those directly influenced by the shock event. Yet, many in-
vestigations into the disaster recovery process still do not consider ac-
tions that are not directly tied to the shock event as vital to understand
the process. For example, it is noticeable that pre-event planning is still
4
Defined as “the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies
to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk and manage residual
risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster
losses” (https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-management Last
accessed: 09/26/2020).
5
The significance of the resilience debate as expanding the understanding of
disaster recovery in this context fits together with other related ideas like
cascading or complex risks (cf. [32]).
This definition, which clearly emphasises that this process is not “driven
predominantly by technical challenges, but rather by social parameters” [26]
can be accepted as a guiding framework in terms of scope. Therefore, this paper
addresses the social aspects of the process and not technical ones.
J. Blahak
often not explicitly considered when analysing the disaster recovery
process (cf. [24]). Moreover, while not specifically addressed in the
definition by Smith, Martin and Wenger [1], “complex” also refers to
understanding the disaster recovery process as going beyond a singular
disaster event, acknowledging the cyclical nature of the disaster recov-
ery process in which the recovery actions that follow one disaster event
influence subsequent disasters [2].
Finally, defining disaster recovery as a “differential process” suggests
a certain dynamic element in how the process develops [27]. This
element is acknowledged by the current literature through more
research into the dynamic interactions between, for example, conditions
of vulnerability and actions taken to effect recovery [32,37]. However,
there is less emphasis on the temporal dynamics that emerge through
“specific patterns of timing and sequence” ([25]:251). Recognizing these
patterns is especially relevant when trying to integrate the institutional
dimension into longitudinal analyses of disaster recovery, as it facilitates
not only the understanding of which institutions influence the process of
disaster recovery over time but why specific institutional solutions were
chosen at a specific time in place [38]. Yet, even in case studies where a
long-term perspective is applied and the impact of institutions is
recognized (e.g. [39,40]), not much attention is paid to these specific
institutional temporal dynamics. For example, Comfort et al. [40] in
their retrospective of the recovery process in New Orleans after Hurri-
cane Katrina list important institutions and events, however, there is
little attention to temporal dynamics like when they happened or how
they influenced each other in a broader sequence.
This suggests that there is a need in the DRR field for additional
conceptual instruments capable of capturing more closely the temporal
dynamics influencing the trajectory of DRR policies to gain a clearer
picture of the disaster recovery issues related to the recovery-resilience
nexus [13]. Addressing this need should not be understood as a critique
of the existing scientific work into disaster recovery. On the contrary,
one objective of enlarging the ’conceptual toolbox’ [21] is to allow re-
searchers to gain even deeper insights into the process of disaster re-
covery based on already existing empirical material.
3. External shocks, focusing events and windows of
opportunities – understanding the origin of the concepts used to
analyse disaster recovery
Before introducing the new critical junctures approach, it is useful to
first survey the advances already made in DRR research through social
science approaches to analysing disaster recovery. It is striking that
many empirical studies – whether quantitative (e.g. [41]) or qualitative
(e.g. [19]) – of disaster recovery conducted by social scientists make use
of concepts like focusing events or windows of opportunity that were first
introduced to study policy change. These concepts from policy research,
and the theoretical frameworks in which they are embedded, were
successfully employed by DRR researchers to analyse the complex dy-
namics between shock events and policy changes in the disaster recov-
ery process (e.g. [16]). To properly understand the strengths and
limitations of these tools it is fundamental to first understand their or-
igins [42]. In the paragraphs that follow, a simplified overview of
relevant perspectives on policy change are presented.
The first relevant framework in this context is the punctuated equi-
librium framework (PEF) [43], which originates the ‘general punctua-
tion hypothesis’ [44] to characterise the basic pattern of policy change
as “[…] that of non-linear ‘punctuated equilibrium’ dynamics in which
longstanding incremental policy sequences infrequently become ‘punc-
tuated’ and shift toward a new sequence, trajectory or ‘equilibrium’”
([45]: 244). Change can occur either due to a “sustained and cumulative
attention to minor events” in the policymaking system [44] or, more
pertinent to this paper, due to exogenous shocks (e.g. [46,47]). The
strength of the PEF, for conceptualising the process of disaster recovery,
is that it underlines the practicality of looking at a sequence of events to
understand different patterns of change and the role of the shock events
3
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164
in these sequences [42]. However, at the same time, its focus on
macro-level developments in which institutions are regarded to be
passive, de-emphasises the role of agency. This view of institutions may
be a disadvantage when trying to understand the specific trajectory of
disaster recovery policies (cf. [42,48]).
Like the PEF, the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) (e.g. [49])
also recognises “two main sources and types of change” ([50]: 487).
However, while the focus of the PEF tends towards analysing the dis-
tribution of larger “punctuations” [42], the ACF emphasises incremental
policy learning in the light of new information [44]. In general, it is
conceptualised that several advocacy coalitions – in which actors with
similar beliefs affiliate themselves into specific groups – are active in a
specific policy subsystem and compete with each other [51]. A smaller
policy change frequently occurs through policy learning. However,
shocks (which can be internal or external) to subsystems lead to more
substantive change [51]. An external shock can be what the DRR com-
munity would call a hazard event [20] or what is sometimes described as
a focusing event. Yet, the ACF also conceptualises that “the major event
is not enough to cause an external shock; it also has to be exploited
successfully by a competing coalition […]” ([50]: 488). This insight has
important implications for the study of the disaster recovery process
because it advocates not only for the consideration of the impact of the
event but also for a focus on the interests and beliefs of relevant actors
[13]. In conclusion, while the ACF is often used for the analysis of
long-term policy changes, the focus in these studies is on the long-term
development of beliefs and values [52] and does not pay special atten-
tion to the impact of timing and sequences of events on the trajectory of
policy changes [53].
The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is likely to be the framework
most often applied to research policy change [20]. Kingdon, who first
developed this approach, argued that change occurs when three inde-
pendent streams (policy, problem, and solution) come together, and a
policy entrepreneur uses this window of opportunity to push for his/her
desired change [54–56]. In this context, Kingdon underlines the
importance of focusing events such as “a crisis or disaster that comes
along to call attention to the problem […]” ([54]: 97). Similar to the
ACF, the concept of a focusing event does not automatically imply a
change in the MSF. It draws attention to a problem but further actions by
relevant actors are necessary to initiate change [41]. Still, “change is
conceptualised as a discrete event […]” ([42]: 21) which makes this
approach especially useful for analysing how a change in terms of
disaster recovery actions occurs or does not occur immediately after the
hazard event.
Finally, an example of the use of policy literature to analyse the
impact of hazard events on policy change was offered by Birkland [16,
17,57]. He developed the model of event-related policy learning as a new
approach to analyse policy changes in the post-disaster period [16]. This
model, influenced by the ACF [49], touched on the impact of specific
advocacy coalitions on policy change and also employed Kingdon’s
work on focusing events [54] to provide context for how actors influence
decision-making [57]. This example shows that the integration of the
concepts borrowed from the frameworks of policy change already
enabled researchers to better integrate the social and institutional di-
mensions in their analyses of disaster recovery efforts by recognizing the
importance of different institutional agents and the context in which
they make decisions for different trajectories of change (e.g. [20,58]). In
the following section, critical juncture approaches are introduced, with
the aim not to replace, but to enhance research into the impact of
temporal phenomena on the institutional dimension of disaster recovery
(cf. [21]).
4. Overview of the literature on critical junctures
While the previously presented policy change frameworks and crit-
ical juncture approaches share the analytical interest in institutional
change processes, the literature on critical junctures is not strictly a part
J. Blahak International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164

of the policy canon [42]. The concept originated in historical institu- topic of disasters. Gawronski and Olson [62,63] used a version of it to
tionalism and then gained popularity in other fields in tandem with a investigate the long-term impact of natural hazard events on the
theoretical focus on path-dependent institutions, especially in the liter- development of polities in Latin American countries. They highlight
ature on comparative politics [59]. The two strands introduced repre- various advantages of this approach and argue that:
sent some of the most prominent understandings of the concept of
“by elucidating relationships and interactions between events and
critical junctures7 and are most applicable in overcoming the missing
identifying consequences through legacies, the framework required
conceptual tools in the disaster recovery literature identified earlier.
that occurrences such as disasters […] be placed and analysed within
While the critical juncture framework – which draws heavily on insights
their contexts […]” ([63]: 28).
from macrohistorical analyses in the area of (comparative) historical
institutionalism [60,61] – is centred around understanding critical
junctures as the origin of long-term structural legacies, the approach
introduced by Capoccia and Kelemen focuses more on what occurs 4.2. Critical junctures as choice points
during critical junctures [3] (for an overview see Table 1).
While the previously introduced strand of literature was used for
4.1. The critical juncture framework explaining the path-dependent pattern of institutional development that
develop after critical junctures, others put the spotlight on what happens
The concept of critical junctures has one of its deepest roots in the at critical junctures [3]. To better understand how choices are made at
area of historical institutionalism8 [21] where it still is widely used and critical junctures, researchers paid more attention to the agent’s role.
developed as a tool to analyse the development of institutions through a Mahoney, for example, recasts critical junctures as choice points where,
historical lens [59]. The ‘critical juncture framework’, as Collier and for a certain period, structural conditions are not very restrictive and
Munck have denominated their synthesis of this strand of literature [4], relevant actors’ decisions can significantly change existing arrange-
has been continuously refined to help in improving the comprehension ments [64].9 In a similar vein, Slater and Simmons [66] argued that to
of particular institutional developments of “shorter phases of fluidity understand what happens at critical junctures, one has to look at the
and change alternating with longer periods of stability and adaptation” interaction between the historical antecedents, and the decisions made
([22]: 147). In this particular framework, the critical juncture is the at the critical juncture contingent on the ‘contextual effects of time and
phase of change and can, more generally, be defined as “1) a major place’ ([21]: 6). The idea presented was further developed by, among
episode of institutional innovation, (2) occurring in distinct ways, (3) others, Soifer [67]. The causal power of contingent contextual factors
and generating an enduring legacy” ([4]: 2). This strand of literature becomes especially apparent when analysing sequences of events in
tries to answer the question of how structural elements have a sustained which choices were made under specific conditions (i.e., at the critical
impact on the trajectory of institutions in terms of functioning as his- junctures) that had long-term impacts that could not have been pre-
torical antecedent conditions that exert influence upon what happens dicted by looking only at general ’historical conditions’ [68]. Capoccia
during a critical juncture, or as institutional legacies that can emerge as and Kelemen reflected these new ideas in their definition of critical
long-lasting remainders impacting the ‘path’ that the institutions take in junctures as “relatively short periods of time during which there is a
the future [4]. substantially heightened probability that agents’ choices will affect the
While significantly less used than, for example, the concept of outcome of interest” [3].
focusing events, this critical juncture approach has been applied to the
5. Practical illustrations of how the critical juncture approach
Table 1 can be used to analyse the trajectory of disaster recovery policies
Overview of the differences between the strands of critical juncture approaches.
Critical Juncture Critical Junctures as
There have been various efforts to harness the introduced ideas on
Framework Choice Points policy frameworks to gain more insight into the disaster recovery pro-
cess. The concept of focusing events has received sustained attention
Prominent Berins Collier & Collier Capoccia & Kelemen
representative (1991); Collier & Munck (2007) [16,17,41], but so have the concepts of windows of opportunity [69]
authors (2017) and the specific interactions between advocacy groups in a policy
Main concepts Antecedent conditions, Critical junctures, choice domain [26]. The following section attempts to demonstrate that ap-
critical junctures, points, counterfactual
plications of the critical juncture literature can further enrich these at-
institutional legacies scenario
Insights into the Allows for the capture of Allows better analysis of
tempts because those analytical approaches emphasise slightly different
temporal dimension the impact of institutional how institutional legacies aspects of the process.
of the disaster legacies on the long-term emerge during critical The unique strengths of a critical juncture approach are illustrated
recovery process development of junctures with the help of a practical example. For this purpose, a small case study
institutions
will be introduced briefly. It will be used to profile different elements of
Insights into the Allows for better Allows better
institutional understanding of the long- understanding of how the critical juncture analysis that will allow a novel analytical perspective
dimension of the term impact of institutions choices made at critical on the case. A distinct methodological approach is required to reveal the
disaster recovery junctures interact with characteristic features of critical juncture analysis [3], that is the causal
process other contingent
process-tracing, which “[…] draws causal inferences based on
contextual factors
causal-process observations with the goal of identifying sequential and
situational observations of causal factors that lead to specific outcomes”
[70]. Despite being aware of the recent methodological advances in the
field of process-tracing [(e.g. [71,72]), the analysis of the case study is
7 relatively limited and focusses only on developing an accurate descrip-
Limiting the overview to two approaches is due to reasons of space, and the
author is conscious that other approaches using critical junctures exist such as
tion of events (cf. [73]: 348) relevant to a specific issue, because it is
those that underscore “the role of ideational change in producing institutional mainly used to examplify a few arguments.
outcome” [59].
8
Even though it has also been “[…] applied to a wide range of outcomes and
9
entities, from individual life histories to the development of groups and orga- It is important to stress here that critical junctures as choice points mark
nizations and the evolution of entire societies” [22]. both manifest and latent options for change [65].

4
J. Blahak
5.1. Case description
Following Gerring’s ([74]: xxviiii) definition, a case is a “spatially
and temporally delimited phenomenon of theoretical interest”. The case
chosen is the municipal flood risk governance arrangement10 in the city
of La Plata from 2002 to 2013 and of interest is how changes in it
affected the trajectory of the disaster recovery policies in that timespan.
The Argentinian city of La Plata is located near the capital Buenos Aires
where most of the country’s population is concentrated. The city itself
has grown significantly since the 1990’s [76] and the estimated popu-
lation of the Gran La Plata agglomeration is, at approximately 893.844
[77]. Due to its geographical location in the Pampean plain at the mouth
of the Río de la Plata, the city is naturally prone to floods. Flooding has
been a constant threat since the city’s founding. The region has
frequently faced extreme weather events in the last decades [78] and the
growing population has further increased the pressure on the land sur-
rounding the city’s nucleus, which aggravates the risk of flood for the
entire population [79]. The main DRR issue that the flood risk gover-
nance arrangement of the municipality of La Plata must resolve is,
therefore, the query of how to address the sustained trend of an
increasing disaster risk that can be attributed to natural factors, and,
more importantly, the social factors relating to increased land-use vul-
nerabilities [78]. To understand potential barriers and drivers for
municipal efforts to address this issue of vulnerability reduction, a
broader analytical perspective that allows to regard the disaster recov-
ery process as part of long-term planning efforts to enhance community
resilience is advantageous, because conditions of vulnerability contrib-
uting to disaster risk are generally more associated with enduring social
factors [32].
The case study can be divided into three major periods:
2002 to 2007: In January 2002, La Plata experienced a major flood.
As a reaction, the Plan Maestro de Obras Hidráulicas 2002–2007 [80] was
presented. This plan was crucial for the later flood risk reduction strat-
egy for La Plata, as the decision signified a strong commitment (in terms
of money and attention) to reduce the perceived infrastructural
vulnerability (and not land-use related vulnerabilities).
2007 to 2010: In 2007, a municipal election in La Plata resulted in a
change of political (and administrative) leadership. Later, after a second
serious flood in 2008, further structural measures for the prevention of
floods were announced and implemented [80].
2010 to 2013: Another important decision to understand the trajec-
tory of municipal disaster recovery policies, taken in 2010, was to
deregulate land use by amending the main municipal urban planning
regulation, the COU (Código de Ordenamiento Urbano).
In 2013 the city experienced a historic flood,11 leading to serious loss
of human lives and economic losses [81]. In the aftermath of this ca-
tastrophe, there was consensus that the natural conditions on the day of
the flooding caused unpredictable and extraordinarily heavy rainfall at
the municipality’s perimeter that overwhelmed the infrastructure built
to avoid the flooding of the city [80]. Further, it was agreed that the
disaster was worsened by existing practices of land use that were already
identified after previous floods as increasing the vulnerability of the
community to flooding, but that were not addressed adequately by the
municipal recovery policies after those floods [81,82].
10
Defined as “institutional constellations resulting from an interplay between
actors and actor coalitions involved in all policy domains relevant for flood risk
management—including water management, spatial planning and disaster
management; their dominant discourses; formal and informal rules of the game;
and the power and resource base of the actors involved” [75].
11
https://reliefweb.int/disaster/st-2013-000035-arg Last accessed: 02/10/
2019.
5
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164
5.2. Identifying critical junctures as choice points in the disaster recovery
process through counterfactual analysis
Gawronski and Olson argue that “a critical juncture approach to
disasters” allows researchers to “ask the correct questions” [62]. In the
La Plata case, a critical juncture approach focussed on identifying
important “choice points” [3] directs attention to the question of
whether the “unpreparedness” identified after the floods in 2013 could
have been avoided if the responsible actors had made different choices
beforehand. This question might be overlooked in analytical approaches
like the MSF to the benefit of questions that concern the (non-)actions
directly related to the eventin 2013 (focusing for example on whether
new policy entrepreneurs emerged [69]).
The critical juncture approach as propagated by Capoccia and
Kelemen, however, recommends counterfactual analysis to answer this
question. If one can plausibly show that at relevant choice points other
decisions and “paths” to follow were available, it strengthens the argu-
ment that the development of an alternative trajectory was possible long
before the ’disaster event’ in 2013 [3]. Concerning this case study, it
seems that the responsible local institutions could have selected other
available alternatives of more non-structural measures such as
strengthening the zoning code and disincentivizing constructions in
hazardous zones close to rivers [83] to reduce the land-use vulnerability
at critical junctures. Such non-structural measures could have been
introduced after the major flooding event in 2002, which attracted
public attention to the existence of land-use issues [81] and therefore
qualifies as a critical juncture. At the latest, the connection of land-use
with the increasing flood risk [84] had become known to responsible
municipal public officials after they received a scientific report
regarding this issue after a second similar flood in 2008 [85]. This was
an opportunity to change the previous strategy, therefore also qualifying
as a critical juncture. Furthermore, the process of reforming the legal
framework of municipal urban planning in 2009–2010 that resulted in
the novel COU in 2010, was another opportunity to introduce more
urban planning measures to reduce the risk of flood in the existing
framework. However, this opportunity was not taken [86]. This critical
juncture was not induced by a natural hazard but by a divide between
distinct groups or advocacy coalitions, in the words of the ACF [49],
related to urban planning. Still, it was a genuine choice point because, if
the available alternatives were chosen, the reform process could have
ended differently, especially with the existence of a vocal protest
movement against the direction the COU took in the end (cf. [87]).
In conclusion, the counterfactual analysis suggests that the unpre-
paredness in terms of non-structural measures in 2013 was, to some
extent, avoidable because the responsible municipal actors could have
introduced such measures at various points. In comparison, while the
policy literature such as Birkland’s event-related policy model also ac-
knowledges that “accumulated experience from prior events” play a role
in understanding the process after the focusing events, the focus still
mostly lies in the dynamics between the disaster-generated public
attention, group mobilisation and the goals of existing policy-making
communities after that disaster event [17]. On the other hand, the
critical juncture approach provides a more tailor-made toolset to analyse
the pre-disaster period through not only referring to ‘prior events’ in
general, but through focusing attention on those events and time periods
that were critical for understanding the trajectory of recovery policies.
Additionally, what makes the counterfactual argument convincing in
this case is that successive “choice points” are identified through critical
juncture analysis. What’s more, the analysis is not restricted to only
regarding disaster events as meaningful, but also captures other choice
points – like the adoption of the COU in 2010 in this case – that are
relevant to the institutional arrangement in question.
J. Blahak
5.3. Understanding long-term institutional dynamics in the process of
disaster recovery
Another important element of critical juncture approaches is that
they allow a structured analysis of how institutional arrangements
develop through time. For this purpose, the critical juncture framework,
as developed in the comparative-historical tradition, provides useful
concepts to analyse the different stages of institutional development and
how they are connected [4]. This is an important difference between the
critical juncture framework and other policy frameworks that focus on
the sequence, such as the PEF [42]. The source of this difference can be
revealed through another look at the case study.
In the La Plata case, the sequence of stability and change, which the
“general punctuation hypothesis” predicts, can be identified as a
dominant pattern. There is relative stability in the flood risk manage-
ment arrangement. It is punctuated by changes in the form of the
introduction of significant structural measures to reduce flood risk
(introduced through, for example, the Plan Maestro), after the flood
events in 2002 and 2008. However, this kind of analysis falls short in
explaining why non-structural measures were not taken up even after
the shock events. In contrast, the critical juncture framework invites
more detailed attention to the dynamics before and after “shock events”
[4], which allows a more in-depth understanding of the kind of change
that is produced. However, the critical juncture approach does not focus
on short-term dynamics that shape policies but makes it possible to
detect long term dynamics through the concepts of antecedent condi-
tions and institutional legacies (e.g. [63]).
One “antecedent condition” [4] leading up to the events in 2002 is of
particular note in the case study. No single institution was given the
responsibility of managing flood risk and coordinating structural and
non-structural measures. The reason for this is that traditionally–
worldwide [88], and specifically in Argentina [89] – hazards related to
flooding have only been regarded as an external problem, against which
public institutions have only been perceived as needing to build struc-
tures likes dikes and drainage systems to protect the citizens [90]. As a
consequence of the focus on engineering solutions [6], the outlook of the
institutions charged with reducing the risk of floods was skewed in this
direction when formulating the policy measures to adopt.
The institutional focus of the critical juncture approach further helps
to better conceptualise the enduring consequences of the decisions made
at a critical juncture. The period after the flood in 2002 qualifies as a
critical juncture not only because it brought attention to the problem at
hand, but because it also created an enduring legacy in the form of the
Plan Maestro de Obras Hidráulicas 2002–2007 [80], which was the main
flood risk reduction strategy for La Plata in the following years. The
insight that there was a change after the shock event is not in itself novel
and could also be gained from other frameworks. What the critical
juncture framework can additionally provide is an explanation for the
persisting influence of this change. The formalisation of the plan can be
identified as the mechanism of production for the legacy of a structural
measure-oriented flood risk reduction strategy [4]. This legacy was then
“locked-in” [4] as the preferred approach to address the persisting flood
risk. This was further reinforced by the fact that it “[…] enhanced the
power of actors [who were] interested in maintaining these institutions”
([68]: 257), serving as a mechanism of reproduction through reducing the
likelihood that more marginalised groups with alternative ideas were
heard (cf. [91]). The impact of institutional legacies can be observed
again at the subsequent critical juncture after the flood event in 2008.
Influenced by the institutional legacy of the Plan Maestro, introducing
more structural measures [81] is the more likely choice than the latent
option of new non-structural measures as recommended by various
expert groups (e.g. [82]) for municipal agents. However, other contex-
tual factors [21] – among others, a previous municipal election and the
dynamics between regional and municipal actors [81] – were also at
play at that critical juncture. At the last identified critical juncture in
2010 it can also be reasonably assumed that decision-makers were
6
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164
influenced by the perpetuated institutional legacy that caused actors to
not associate urban planning with flood reduction. This made the
outcome, the municipal ordinance N◦ 9231, that emphasised economic
development with a more permissive stance towards housing develop-
ment and deemphasised the need for development control more likely
(cf. [87]). Yet it has to be also acknowleded that the outcome was, in a
large part, influenced by other more situational political considerations
[91]. Still, recognizing these contingent elements [59] does not depre-
ciate the value of understanding the history of an institutional
arrangement. A case in point is that the municipality of La Plata, after
2013, recognized the enduring institutional legacy – the division of re-
sponsibilities for structural and non-structural measures – in the
municipal flood risk governance arrangement. With this knowledge, the
municipal government of La Plata was able to remedy this problem and
created one municipal institution responsible for flood risk management
in general [78].
6. Discussion
To sum up, the critical juncture approach to the analysis of the
disaster recovery process afforded additional insights into the case of La
Plata that could not have been easily obtained otherwise. The potential
benefits identified in the beginning – a more thorough temporal analysis
in terms of scale and depth, and a distinct institutional focus – did indeed
lead to a more comprehensive analysis of disaster recovery dynamics.
The critical juncture approach encouraged understanding of the
conditions of vulnerability aggravating the hazard event in 2013 as
being connected to a sequence of decisions on flood risk management
made by (mainly the local) public officials previously. The approach
prompted analysts to look beyond one “disaster lifecycle” into the spe-
cific history of the municipal flood risk governance arrangement and
how it shaped policy decisions regarding the recovery strategy. How-
ever, not only a broader view but also a more structured analysis was
facilitated, which allowed “[…] for appropriate distinctions to be made
between different parts of the story” ([68]: 348). The explanation for the
unpreparedness of the municipality in 2013 can easily be attributed to
the natural forces being simply too strong. However, the counterfactual
analysis – looking at the choices available to municipal decision-makers
at each critical juncture – revealed that a choice of a different flood risk
management approach that would have reduced vulnerability had been
possible at various points in the story. It also brought to attention the
underlying causes for the decision that the decision-makers made at the
respective critical junctures. In this regard, the focus on the existing
institutional arrangement – in the case of La Plata, the flood risk
governance arrangement – makes it possible to scrutinize the impact of
specific institutional environments on the policy response to the flood
risk. This revealed the long-lasting impact of institutional legacies on the
way the municipal actors addressed the issue of flood risk.
Yet, the illustrative case study also revealed certain limitations of this
approach. It should be clear that throughout the analysis, while the
causal forces described (among others, the influence of institutional
legacies on decision-makers at critical junctures) increase the proba-
bility of certain developments, they cannot predict the development of
the trajectory of disaster recovery efforts [59]. More micro-analytic
approaches [92], such as policy change frameworks already employed
in DRR research, are necessary to shed light on the additional factors
influencing the responsible actors at critical junctures. In sum, to engage
in an in-depth study of the disaster recovery process in La Plata (as a part
of a broader effort to increase resilience), the presented applications of
critical junctures is not sufficient. They only help to understand specific
aspects of the case better. However, there is a host of other aspects that
are not addressed (among others, emergency management, climate
change dynamics and broader socioeconomic conditions) [80].
Furthermore, the definition of the concept of critical junctures in this
case study is still relatively vague and does not go into the nuances
touched upon in the introduction of the different strands of literature
J. Blahak
using the concept of critical junctures. As the goal of this paper was to
present a representative overview of potentially useful application of
critical juncture approaches to the analysis of the disaster recovery
process, this theoretical vagueness may be considered reasonable. Yet,
more precise theoretical underpinnings are necessary if researchers wish
to use these approaches for more in-depth or structured comparative
analyses. In the following paragraphs, two current theoretical conten-
tions are shortly presented [59], which need to be addressed in this
context.
The first important point of contention in the literature about critical
junctures not addressed in this paper is whether change is a constitutive
part of the concept of critical junctures [93]. Capoccia and Kelemen who
emphasised “structural fluidity and heightened contingency […] as
defining traits of critical junctures” ([3]: 352) do not equate a critical
juncture with change. This relates to the idea of critical junctures as
choice points where not choosing to follow a specific path is also
possible [65]. On the other hand, Collier and Munck insinuate that
change is an essential element of the concept of critical junctures and
caution against stretching the concept too much through removing
change from the definition [4]. A similar conceptualisation of critical
junctures can be found in other works that are more associated with the
comparative historical perspective (e.g.[66,67]). Yet, while separating
the concept of critical junctures from change bears the risk of losing a
clear bounding of the concept, the definition by Capoccia and Kelemen
[3] does provide the basis for employing counterfactual analysis (e.g.
[62]). It is therefore not possible to discard either proposition. One
needs to decide whether to treat critical junctures as related to change or
as the basis for counterfactual analysis.
Another line of discussion that is not taken up in this paper is the
relationship between the critical juncture approaches and the idea of
incremental (endogenous) institutional changes (e.g. [94,95]) that “take
place gradually but over the long runtransform radically an institution,
either through piecemeal reform (layering) or reinterpretation (con-
version)” ([59]: 100). Some institutionalist scholars like Capoccia argue
that theorising this kind of endogenous change [96] and change pro-
duced by critical junctures should be regarded as distinct [22]. Ques-
tioning this “artificial boundary between critical junctures and
incremental change” ([97]: 10) Tarrow argues that critical junctures can
also serve to capture incremental mechanisms of change. Similarly,
Roberts, with a view of comparative studies, argues that institutional
legacies that can be traced back to critical junctures can have different
forms that sometimes follow a “path-dependent logic” but can also
resemble a more incremental model [92]. While Capoccia’s caution
should not be ignored, it would be interesting to explore institutional
literature on change beyond the classical punctuation/stability dynamic
when analysing disaster recovery processes in the future. In this
connection, insights related to policy learning [49,98,99] could also be
integrated more systematically. One very insightful proposition in this
regard was put forth by Stark [23], who reconceptualises critical junc-
tures to accommodate the needs of scholars “interested in understanding
the complexity of a post-crisis reform period”. His main contribution to
this analytical discussion is the argument that “post-crisis periods cannot
be seen in terms of one critical juncture and one potential change in
policy trajectory but rather as a messy collage of (potentially) big bang
change, gradual change and ‘near-misses […]” ([23]: 26). This con-
ceptualisation of critical junctures would permit the tracking of different
kinds of changes that occur simultaneously after a disaster event.
7. Conclusion & Outlook
This paper started by observing that the disaster recovery process has
been increasingly described – especially with the integration of
7
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164
resilience thinking – as a complex and long-term process [1,2]. This
expansion at the theoretical level has not yet been fully rendered at the
analytical level.12 Drawing mainly from literature about policy change
(e.g. [16,20]), social scientists have shed light on questions such as why,
even after a focusing event, policy action to increase capacities “to
effectively address recovery needs” [1] might not occur [cf., [17]].
To enhance the existing social scientific insights about disaster re-
covery (e.g.[13,41,69,101]), the concept of critical junctures and, in
general, the historical institutionalist literature on critical junctures [3,
4] can help investigators of the DRR community to move research for-
ward in this direction by employing a novel analytical perspective. As
shown through an illustrative case study, using a critical juncture
approach aids differential longitudinal analyses of the disaster recovery
process. It allows tracking of the impact of specific institutional legacies
and further enhancing the understanding of how specific institutional
arrangements (and their history) can explain “potential variations in the
temporal trajectory of recovery” [24]. Furthermore, identifying critical
junctures facilitates investigations into “[…] what likely consequences
the choice of an alternative option would have had for the institutional
outcome of interest” [22]. Such counterfactual thought experiments can
help to engage in structured analyses of the disaster recovery process
that can be a basis for later comparative analyses (e.g.[3,62]).
To conclude, this paper can be understood as part of the endeavour of
“enhancing the ability of the social sciences to unpack the complexity of
the world […] by developing a cluster of tools for analysing dynamic
situations […]” ([102]: 318). An alternative analytical approach is only
a small step within the broader pursuit of addressing disaster recovery as
a complex “wicked” social process [2]. Yet, trying to apply insights
garnered from studying institutional change to the study of the disaster
recovery process can hopefully serve as a steppingstone for further in-
vestigations. While the emphasis in this paper is on establishing the new
contribution critical juncture approaches can make, it is also possible to
apply in future the concepts drawn from policy research such as focusing
events or windows of opportunity [5,54], together with the critical
juncture concept. A lot of overlaps between the approaches exist, which
have not been attended to in this paper due to the limited space. More
discussion about a common theoretical framework that combines in-
sights from both traditions has a lot of potential. The first steps in this
direction are, for example, the work by Stark [23] and O’Donovan [41].
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is funded through the DFG (German Research Foun-
dation) Reinhart Koselleck program (project SE 518/22-1).
References
[1] G. Smith, A. Martin, D.E. Wenger, Disaster recovery in an era of climate change:
the unrealized promise of institutional resilience, in: H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, J.
E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of Disaster Research, Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 2018, pp. 595–619.
[2] D. Blackman, H. Nakanishi, A.M. Benson, Disaster resilience as a complex
problem: why linearity is not applicable for long-term recovery, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 121 (2017) 89–98.
[3] G. Capoccia, R.D. Kelemen, The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative, and
counterfactuals in historical institutionalism, World Polit. 59 (3) (2007) 341–369.
12
This situation may remind the readers of Hall’s [100] observation that the
‘ontologies have outrun the methodologies’ in the social sciences.
J. Blahak
[4] D. Collier, G.L. Munck, Building blocks and methodological challenges,
A Framework for Studying Critical Junctures. Qualitative and Multi–Method
Research Section of the American Political Science Association 15 (1) (2017) 2–9.
[5] C.L. Atkinson, in: A. Farazmand (Ed.), Focus Event and Public Policy, in Global
Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 1–5.
[6] C. Béné, et al., Resilience as a policy narrative: potentials and limits in the context
of urban planning, Clim. Dev. 10 (2) (2018) 116–133.
[7] R. Beilin, C. Wilkinson, Introduction: Governing for urban eesilience, Urban Stud.
52 (7) (2015) 1205–1217.
[8] S.L. Cutter, Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? Geogr. J. 182 (2) (2016)
110–113.
[9] A. Duit, Resilience thinking: lessons for public administration, Publ. Adm. 94 (2)
(2016) 364–380.
[10] A.B. Wildavsky, Searching for Safety, Transaction Publ, New Brunswick N.J,
1988.
[11] H. Ross, F. Berkes, Research approaches for understanding, enhancing, and
monitoring community resilience, Soc. Nat. Resour. 27 (8) (2014) 787–804.
[12] J. Birkmann, et al., Extreme Events and Disasters: a window of opportunity for
change? Analysis of organizational, institutional and political changes, formal
and informal responses after mega-disasters, Nat. Hazards 55 (3) (2010) 637–655.
[13] E.A. Koebele, D.A. Crow, E.A. Albright, Building resilience during recovery:
lessons from Colorado’s watershed resilience pilot program, Environ. Manag. 66
(1) (2020) 1–15.
[14] G.A. Wilson, Community resilience: path dependency, lock-in effects and
transitional ruptures, J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 57 (1) (2014) 1–26.
[15] K. Tierney, A. Oliver-Smith, Social dimensions of disaster recovery, Int. J. Mass
Emergencies Disasters 30 (2) (2012) 123–146.
[16] T.A. Birkland, Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change after Catastrophic Events,
Georgetown University Press, 2006.
[17] T.A. Birkland, After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events,
Georgetown Univ. Press, Washington, DC, 1997.
[18] E.A. Albright, D.A. Crow, Capacity building toward resilience: how communities
recover, learn, and change in the aftermath of extreme events, Pol. Stud. J. 49 (1)
(2019) 89–122, https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12364.
[19] S. Surminski, S. McCraine, Understanding decisions and disasters: a retrospective
analysis of hurricane sandy’s focusing power on climate change adaptation policy
in new york city, London School of Economics, 2019.
[20] R.S. Olson, et al., From disaster risk reduction to policy studies: bridging research
communities, Nat. Hazards Rev. 21 (2020) 4020014.
[21] O. Fioretos, T.G. Falleti, A. Sheingate, in: O. Fioretos, T.G. Falleti, A. Sheingate
(Eds.), Historical Institutionalism in Political Science, in the Oxford Handbook of
Historical Institutionalism, 2016, pp. 3–30.
[22] G. Capoccia, Critical Junctures and Institutional Change, Cambridge University
Press, 2015, pp. 147–179.
[23] A. Stark, New institutionalism, critical junctures and post-crisis policy reform,
Aust. J. Polit. Sci. 53 (1) (2018) 24–39.
[24] G. Smith, T. Birkland, Building a theory of recovery: institutional dimensions,
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 30 (2012) 147–170.
[25] P. Pierson, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, Princeton
University Press, , Princeton, NJ, 2004.
[26] G.P. Smith, D. Wenger, Sustainable disaster recovery: operationalizing an existing
Agenda, in: Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer, , New York, NY, 2007,
pp. 234–257. New York.
[27] C.B. Rubin, Long term recovery from disasters - the neglected component of
emergency management, J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 6 (1) (2009).
[28] C. Folke, et al., Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and
transformability, Ecol. Soc. 15 (4) (2010).
[29] A.K. Donahue, S. O’Keefe, Universal lessons from unique events: perspectives
from columbia and Katrina, Publ. Adm. Rev. 67 (s1) (2007) 77–81.
[30] P. Achamnos, et al., in: R. D’Alençon, F. Rota (Eds.), Heritage and Catastrophe:
Prevention, Emergency, Restoration and Transformation in 2009 l’Aquila
Earthquake, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, 2015.
[31] C.B. Field, et al., Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance
climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change, in: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and, New York, NY, USA, 2012.
[32] G. Pescaroli, D. Alexander, Understanding compound, interconnected,
interacting, and cascading risks, A Holistic Framework. Risk analysis 38 (11)
(2018) 2245–2257.
[33] C. Folke, Resilience: the Emergence of a Perspective for social-ecological Systems
analyses, Global Environ. Change 16 (3) (2006) 253–267.
[34] T. Beatley, Planning for Coastal Resilience: Best Practices for Calamitous Times,
Island Press, 2009.
[35] R.S. Parker, in: A. Kreimer, M. Arnold (Eds.), Single-Family Housing : the Window
of Opportunity for Mitigation Following Natural Disaster, in Managing Disaster
Risk in Emerging Economies, The World Bank, Washington, 2000, pp. 71–80.
[36] UNDRR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
[37] W.E. Highfield, W.G. Peacock, S. Van Zandt, Mitigation planning:why hazard
exposure, structural vulnerability, and social vulnerability matter, J. Plann. Educ.
Res. 34 (3) (2014) 287–300.
[38] G. Capoccia, in: J. Mahoney, K.A. Thelen (Eds.), Critical Junctures and
Institutional Change, in Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2015, pp. 147–179.
8
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164
[39] D.E. Alexander, L’Aquila, central Italy, and the “disaster cycle”, 2009-2017,
Disaster Prev. Manag.: Int. J. 28 (4) (2019) 419–433, https://doi.org/10.1108/
DPM-01-2018-0022.
[40] L.K. Comfort, et al., Retrospectives and prospectives on Hurricane Katrina: five
years and counting, Publ. Adm. Rev. 70 (5) (2010) 669–678.
[41] K. O’Donovan, An assessment of aggregate focusing events, disaster experience,
and policy change. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 8 (3) (2017) 201–219.
[42] G. Capano, Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical
problem, J. Comp. Pol. Anal.: Research and Practice 11 (1) (2009) 7–31.
[43] F.R. Baumgartner, B.D. Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics,
University of Chicago Press, 2010.
[44] T. Heikkila, P. Cairney, Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process, Routledge,
2018, pp. 301–327.
[45] M. Howlett, Process sequencing policy dynamics: beyond homeostasis and path
dependency, J. Publ. Pol. 29 (3) (2009) 241–262.
[46] J.L. True, B.D. Jones, F.R. Baumgartner, in: C.M. Weible, P.A. Sabatier (Eds.),
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public
Policymaking, in Theories of the Policy Process, Routledge, 2017, pp. 175–202.
[47] E. Petridou, Theories of the policy process: contemporary scholarship and future
directions, Pol. Stud. J. 42 (S1) (2014) 12–32.
[48] B. Cashore, M. Howlett, Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding
thermostatic policy Dynamics in pacific northwest forestry, Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51
(3) (2007) 532–551.
[49] P.A. Sabatier, H.C. Jenkins-Smith, Westview Pr, Policy Change and Learning: An
Advocacy Coalition Approach (1993).
[50] P. Cairney, P.A. Sabatier, in: M. Lodge, E.C. Page, S.J. Balla (Eds.), An Advocacy
Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning
Therein, in the Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration,
Oxford University Press, 2016. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.109
3/oxfordhb/9780199646135.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199646135-e-24.
[51] P.A. Sabatier, C.M. Weible, The advocacy coalition framework, Theories of the
policy process 2 (2007) 189–220.
[52] M. Zafonte, P. Sabatier, Short-term versus long-term Coalitions in the policy
process: automotive pollution control, 1963–1989, Pol. Stud. J. 32 (1) (2004)
75–107.
[53] P. Cairney, in: P. Cairney (Ed.), Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, in Understanding
Public Policy: Theories and Issues, Red Globe Press, 2019.
[54] J.W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, second ed., Longman,
New York;Munich [u.a.], 2003.
[55] M.D. Jones, et al., A river runs through it: a multiple streams meta-review, Pol.
Stud. J. 44 (1) (2016) 13–36.
[56] N. Herweg, Multiple streams ansatz, in: G. Wenzelburger, R. Zohlnhöfer (Eds.),
Handbuch Policy-Forschung, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2015,
pp. 325–353.
[57] T.A. Birkland, Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting, J. Publ. Pol. 18
(1) (1998) 53–74.
[58] E.L. Quarantelli, A. Boin, P. Lagadec, Studying future disasters and crises: a
heuristic approach, in: H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, J.E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of
Disaster Research, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 61–83.
[59] G. Capoccia, in: O. Fioretos, T.G. Falleti, A. Sheingate (Eds.), Critical Junctures, in
the Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism, Oxford University Press,
2016.
[60] S.M. Lipset, S. Rokkan, Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter
Alignments: an Introduction, Free Press, New York, 1967.
[61] R. Berins Collier, D. Collier, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the
Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ [u.a.], 1991.
[62] V.T. Gawronski, R.S. Olson, Disasters as Crisis Triggers for Critical Junctures? The
1976 Guatemala Case, Latin American Politics and Society 55 (2013) 133–149.
[63] R.S. Olson, V.T. Gawronski, Disasters as Critical Junctures? Managua, Nicaragua
1972 and Mexico City 1985, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters 21 (2003) 5–35.
[64] J. Mahoney, The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes
in Central America, Johns Hopkins University Press, , Baltimore and London,
2001.
[65] J. Levy, G. Goertz, Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary
Condition Counterfactuals, Routledge, 2007.
[66] D. Slater, E. Simmons, Informative Regress: Critical Antecedents in Comparative
Politics, Comparative Political Studies 43 (7) (2010) 886–917, https://doi.org/
10.1177/0010414010361343.
[67] H.D. Soifer, The causal logic of critical junctures, Comp. Polit. Stud. 45 (12)
(2012) 1572–1597.
[68] A. Bennett, C. Elman, Complex causal relations and case study methods: the
example of path dependence, Polit. Anal. 14 (3) (2006) 250–267.
[69] A. Scolobig, J. Linnerooth–Bayer, M. Pelling, Drivers of transformative change in
the Italian landslide risk policy, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
9 (2014) 124–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.05.003.
[70] J. Blatter, M. Haverland, Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in
Small-N Research, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Basingstoke [u.a.].
[71] D. Beach, R.B. Pedersen, Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines,
University of Michigan Press, 2019.
[72] A. Bennett, J. Checkel. Process Tracing: from Metaphor to Analytic Tool,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014.
[73] J. Blatter, T. Blume, In search of Co-variance, causal mechanisms or congruence?
Towards a plural understanding of case studies, Swiss Polit. Sci. Rev. 14 (2)
(2008) 315–356.
J. Blahak
[74] J. Gerring, Case Study Research: Principles and Practices, 2nd, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2017.
[75] C. Dieperink, et al., Recurrent governance challenges in the implementation and
alignment of flood risk management strategies: a review, Water Resour. Manag.
30 (13) (2016) 4467–4481.
[76] M.I. Andrade, N.C. Lucioni, L.E. Iezzi, Factores de riego hídrico en el Gran La
Plata, Argentina, in: IX Jornadas Nacionales de Geografía Física 19 al 21 de abril
de 2012 Bahía Blanca, Argentina, 2012.
[77] INDEC, Aglomerados de la Argentina de 500.000 habitantes y más, in: Dirección
de Estadísticas Poblacionales, 2020. https://www.indec.gob.ar/ftp/cuadros/pobl
acion/aglomerados_argentina_500_mil.pdf.
[78] J.L. Karol, G.A. San Juan, Saber qué Hacer: Construcción de un Sistema para la
Gestión Integrada del Riesgo Hídrico en la Región del Gran La Plata. – La Edición
Especial, La Plata: Universidad de La Plata. Facultad de Arquitectura y
Urbanismo, 2018.
[79] E.E. Fucks, et al., Evolución geomorfológica de la región del Gran La Plata y su
relación con eventos catastróficos, Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina
74 (2) (2017) 141–154.
́ 2 y 3 de abril de
[80] S.O. Liscia, et al., Estudio sobre la inundación ocurrida los dias
2013 en las ciudades de La Plata, Berisso y Ensenada, Estudio sobre la Inundación
́
Ocurrida los dias 2 y 3 de Abril de 2013 en las Ciudades de La Plata, Berisso y
Ensenada (2013).
[81] P. Morosi, P. Romanazzi, Genealogía de una Tragedia - Inundación de La Plata, 2
de abril de 2013, Marea Editorial, Buenos Aires, 2018.
[82] M.A. Hurtado, J.E. Giménez, M. Cabral, Análisis Ambiental del Partido de La
Plata - Aportes al Ordenamiento Territorial, Análisis Ambiental del Partido de La
Plata - Aportes al Ordenamiento Territorial (2006). http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar
/handle/10915/27046.
[83] M.R. Motsholapheko, D.L. Kgathi, in: M.R. Motsholapheko, D.L. Kgathi (Eds.),
Flooding, Risk Factors and Responses: an Overview of Concepts, in Risk Factors,
Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies, Nova Science Publishers,
New York, 2015.
[84] P.G. Romanazzi, et al., Evaluación de la Infraestructura Social Básica en el Marco
de la Regionalización de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, 2012.
[85] M.I. Andrade, O.E. Scarpati, Recent changes in flood risk in the gran La Plata,
Buenos Aires province, Argentina: causes and management strategy, Geojournal
70 (2008) 245–250.
[86] Cámara de Apelaciones, S., J. C/MUNICIPALIDAD DE LA PLATA Y OTROS S/
PRETENSION INDEMNIZATORIA, in 1484, Contencioso Administrativo No 1 de
La Plata, 2010 (La Plata).
[87] F. Vértiz, La Intervención Estatal en la Producción de la Ciudad, in: Conformación
y Orientación de la Política Urbana en el Partido de La Plata (2003-2014), in
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 58 (2021) 102164
Faculdad de Humanidades y Cs. de la Educación, Universidad de La Plata: La
Plata, 2016.
[88] WMO, Urban Flood Management in a Changing Climate in Integrated Flood
Management Tools Series, WMO, Geneva, 2012.
[89] G. Banzato, Políticas Públicas ante el Cambio Climático en un Contexto de
Crecimiento Económico: construcción de una Agencia Estatal para paliar las
Inundaciones en la Provincia de Buenos Aires, 1870–1910, in: IV Congreso
Latinoamericano de Historia Económica 23 al 25 de julio de 2014 Bogotá,
Colombia, Universidad de Bogotá, 2014.
[90] L. Barrera, V. Demaestri, J.L. Mac Kenzie, A La deriva, in La pulseada, 2008.
[91] F. Vértiz, Actores, Ámbitos y Estrategias detrás de la Regulación Urbana en La
Plata (Argentina), Revista Direito e Práxis (2019).
[92] K.M. Roberts, Pitfalls and opportunities: lessons from the study of critical
junctures in Latin America, Qual. Multi-Meth. Res. 15 (2017) 12–15.
[93] F. Volpi, J. Gerschewski, Crises and critical junctures in authoritarian regimes:
addressing uprisings’ temporalities and discontinuities, Third World Quarterly 41
(6) (2020) 1030–1045.
[94] K. Thelen, in: D. Rueschemeyer, J. Mahoney (Eds.), How Institutions Evolve, in
Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge University
Press, , Cambridge, 2003, pp. 208–240.
[95] W. Streeck, K. Thelen, in: W. Streeck, K. Thelen (Eds.), Introduction: Institutional
Change in Advanced Political Economies, in beyond Continuity: Institutional
Change in Advanced Political Economies, Oxford University Press, , Oxford, 2005,
pp. 1–39.
[96] J. Mahoney, K. Thelen, Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and
Power, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[97] S. Tarrow, The world changed today!" can we recognize critical junctures when
we see them? Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 15 (1) (2017) 9–11.
[98] G.J. Busenberg, Learning in organizations and public policy, J. Public Pol. 21 (2)
(2001) 173–189.
[99] P.J. May, Policy learning and failure, Journal of public policy 12 (4) (1992)
331–354.
[100] P.A. Hall, Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research, in: R.
D. Mahoney (Ed.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K., New York, 2003.
[101] A. Boin, A. McConnell, P. t’Hart, Governing after Crisis: the Politics of
Investigation, Accountability and Learning, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2008.
[102] E. Ostrom, X. Basurto, Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change.
Journal of institutional economics 7 (3) (2011) 317–343.
[103] Anna Grzymala-Busse, Time Will Tell? Temporality and the Analysis of Causal
Mechanisms and Processes, Comparative Political Studies 44 (9) (2011)
1267–1297.