**Comparative Politics and Disasters:**

**Assessing Substantive and Methodological Contributions**

David A. McEntire

and

Sarah Mathis

Emergency Administration and Planning

Department of Public Administration

University of North Texas

P.O. Box 310617

Denton, Tx 76203-0617

**Abstract**

The following chapter illustrates how the discipline of comparative
politics may help increase our understanding of disasters in other
countries as well as promote more effective emergency management
institutions and practices domestically and abroad. In seeking to reach
this objective, the nature, goals, history, and background of
comparative politics will first be mentioned. The chapter will then
discuss the underappreciated method of comparison, and identify a number
of subject areas that have been examined or could be addressed by this
discipline in the future. The major argument to be made is that the
comparative method makes unrecognized contributions to disaster studies
and will continue to do so as research advances in the United States and
in foreign territories.

"Nations can only be understood in comparative perspective" (Lipset
1990, xiii).

"The significance of disaster . . . is brought sharply into focus when
one takes a cross-cultural and international view" (Dynes 1988, 102).

**Introduction**

According to the renowned disaster sociologist, Thomas Drabek, the field
of emergency management is currently being professionalized and
internationalized (McEntire 2001). These changes imply that emergency
managers are now more knowledgeable than they were in the past, and
suggest that there is increased effort to expand this valued area of
public service to other countries.

Although a great deal of attention is being directed toward the
increasingly recognized profession in terms of new degree programs,
additional academic journals and recurring conferences sponsored by
emergency management associations, we lack understanding of disasters
and emergency management institutions around the world. This not only
calls into question the benefit of applying research from the United
States to other nations, but it also limits improvements in the field in
this country because lessons are not sufficiently drawn from the
positive and negative experiences of others. The obvious outcome is that
disaster prevention and management is hindered, both here and elsewhere.

With this preface in mind, the goal of the following chapter is to
illustrate how the discipline of comparative politics may help increase
our understanding of disasters in other countries as well as promote
more effective emergency management institutions and practices
internationally. In order to reach this objective the nature, goals, and
historical background of comparative politics will first be discussed.
The chapter will then discuss the underappreciated method of comparison,
and identify a number of subject areas that have been examined or could
be addressed by this discipline in the future. The major argument to be
made is that the comparative method makes unrecognized contributions to
disaster studies and will continue to do so as research advances across
foreign territories.

**Comparative Politics and its Relation to Disasters**

The discipline of comparative politics is the study of political systems
and processes around the world (Hauss 1997). It is an area of
scholarship that is interested in understanding all nations and the
political activities that take place within them. This being the case,
comparative politics is sometimes known as comparative public policy --
"the study of how, why, and to what effect different governments pursue
particular courses or action or inaction" (Heidenheimer, Heclo and Adams
1990, 3). Regardless of the actual title of the discipline, comparative
politics might be the only field of study based on an explicit
methodology. Its approach to research includes comparing and contrasting
variables to identify why change occurs, what makes for a successful
government, and how policy can be made effective. According to Wiarda
(1993, 12), comparative politics "is particularly interested in
exploring patterns, processes, and regularities among political
systems." He further adds that students of comparative politics
generally undertake the following types of research: studies of one
country, studies of two or more countries, regional or area studies,
studies across regions, global comparisons, and thematic studies (Wiarda
1993, 12-15).

As can be seen, comparative politics is an offshoot of political
science, and it initially reflected "significant concern for both
historical perspective and the norms of political behavior" (Bill and
Hardgrave 1981, 2). Although this area of scholarship can trace its
roots to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it did not
really emerge "as a distinct subfield of political science until the two
decades between the two world wars" (Rustow and Erickson 1991, 1). This
was a period when scholars became consumed with understanding why
conflict broke out in Europe, how new government institutions were
fairing, and what could be done differently to ensure political
stability and prevent similar events from recurring. After World War II
ended and the international community entered the Cold War era, interest
in comparative politics grew dramatically. While the United States and
the Soviet Union were aligning themselves with their respective allies,
scholars began to examine the plethora of countries that made up the
Third World. Their goal was to comprehend what these nations looked like
and how they might become more like those in the West (or East if you
were from the communist block). Comparative politics thus developed a
close relationship with sociology, anthropology, economics and other
disciplines in the social sciences.

While comparative politics is related to many fields of study, it has
not contributed directly to the study of disasters. Indeed, it would be
difficult to find any substantial discussion of disasters by scholars of
comparative politics. However, it is interesting to note that Green
(1994, 143), Walker (1994, 157), Chirot (1994, 174) and others have
traced foment for the revolutions in Iran, Nicaragua and the Soviet
Union to natural and technological disasters (e.g., earthquakes,
Chernobyl) and the preferential distribution of relief afterwards.
Nonetheless, comparative politics has remained, for the most part, aloof
from disaster studies. But this is not to imply that comparative
politics could not benefit the study of disasters, because there are a
number of issues that overlap considerably between the two fields (see
table 1 below). Disaster researchers have already recognized the value
of these issues and have produced some very important findings in these
areas (Mileti 1999; Peacock, Morrow and Gladwin 1997; Birkland 1996;
Drabek and Hoetmer 1991; Schneider 1995; Dror 1988; Wisner et. al.
1994). More research in these subject areas is needed however. For
instance, how do cultures around the world view disasters? Why do class
relations have such a large impact on disaster vulnerability? What can
be done to increase political support for disaster mitigation policies?
Are intergovernmental relations problematic in foreign disasters? What
steps can be taken to improve emergency management around the world? Do
models such as incrementalism, group think, or misperception shed light
on decision making before and after disasters? What is the relationship
between development and disasters? These are only a few of the questions
that could be addressed by scholars interested in comparative politics.

**Table 1**

> [Subject Area]{.underline} [Application to Disaster
> Studies]{.underline}
>
> Political Culture What values and attitudes affect disaster policy?
>
> Socioeconomic Status How do poverty/powerlessness relate to
> vulnerability?
>
> Interest Groups Why is apathy towards disasters so common?
>
> Institutions/State How do governments/agencies operate in disasters?
>
> Public Policy What makes emergency management effective?
>
> Decision Making Why are choice difficult to make in disaster
> situations?
>
> Development Does modernization increase/decrease vulnerability?

**Methods**

The greatest potential contribution of comparative politics to disaster
studies is in the area of methods. In fact, comparative politics defines
itself by "a methodological instead of substantive label" (Lijphart
1971, 682), and this method may do much to advance the study of
disaster. But, what exactly is the comparative method and how does it
relate to other research methodologies? What problems are inherent in
comparison and how can these be overcome? Finally, what are the benefits
of comparative research?

First, the well-known comparativist Arend Lijphart "defines the
comparative method as the analysis of a small number of cases, entailing
at least two observations, but less than about twenty" (Collier 1991,
8). Sartori suggests that this analysis of comparing "is both to
assimilate and to differentiate" (1991, 246). He then adds:

> If two entities are similar in everything, in all their
> characteristics, then they are the same entity. If, on the other hand,
> two entities are different in every respect, then their comparison is
> nonsensical . . . . The comparisons in which we sensible and actually
> engage are thus the ones between entities whose attributes are in part
> shared (similar) and in part non-shared (and thus, we say
> incomparable) (Sartori 1991, 246).

Prezworski and Teune (1970) also note, however, that our comparisons may
be based on most similar or most different designs.

The comparative method is similar to other methods in the social
sciences because much of the subject matter in this area does not lend
itself to the scientific rigors of experimentation (Lijphart 1971).
Nevertheless, comparison lies between the case study and statistical
methods because of its modest scope. On the one hand, case studies are
utilized to describe, generate hypotheses, confirm theory or expose
deviant situations. They are relatively easy to conduct, but they do not
allow for far-reaching generalizations. On the other hand, the
statistical method is employed to control relationships by
mathematically manipulating dependent and independent variables.
Although statistics approximates experimentation, this type of method
can be very time consuming and expensive (due to the large number of
variables involved). The comparative method is thus less difficult to
utilize than the statistical method and it also helps to generate
stronger conclusions than the case study method.

This is not to say that the comparative method is void of problems.
Sartori (1991) has identified five typical problems with this method:

1.  Parochialism -- focusing on one country only and failing to
    incorporate and build upon prior research.

2.  Misclassification -- placing phenomena into pseudo classes.

3.  Degreeism -- finding it difficult to choose between continuums and
    categories.

4.  Conceptual stretching -- implying that certain words mean everything
    (e.g., for ideological purposes).

5.  Incommensurability -- failing to find a common measure for different
    systems or variables.

But these challenges need not be insurmountable. They can be overcome by
increasing the number of cases, reducing the number of variables, and
including comparable phenomena in research strategies (Collier 1991).

In spite of these weaknesses, there are a number of advantages
associated with the comparative method. It has been suggested that the
"comparative method allows systemic comparison which, if appropriately
utilized, can contribute to the assessment of alternative explanations"
(Collier 1991, 10). In other words comparison helps us to understand,
explain, interpret, and verify or falsify generalizations (Sartori 1991,
244). Furthermore, comparison facilitates "thick description" (Geertz
1973) and limits "conceptual stretching" (Satori 1991). Summarizing
these points, Collier states:

> Comparison sharpens our powers of description and can be an invaluable
> stimulus to concept formation. It provides criteria for testing
> hypotheses and contributes to the inductive discovery of new
> hypotheses and to theory building" (1991, 7).

Is it any wonder, then, that the scientific method is inherently
comparative (Lasswell 1968, 3), or that comparison is regarded to be
equivalent to the natural scientist laboratory (Eckstein in Lijphart
1971)?[^1]

Ironically, the discipline of comparative politics has been notably slow
to fully adopt the comparative method. Macridis asserted in 1955 that
the discipline did not live up to its name when it was initially
founded. Sartori even declares that not much has changed in the last
fifty years:

> Let us squarely face it: normal science is not doing well. A field
> defined by its method -- comparing -- cannot prosper without a core
> method. My critique does not imply, to be sure, that good, even
> excellent, comparative work is no longer under way. But even the
> current good comparative work underachieves on account of having lost
> sight of what comparing is for (1991, 255).

Disaster studies should not make the same mistake.

**Potential and Actual Contributions of Comparison**

It is evident that comparison enables an understanding of important
phenomena. Comparison can help one identify the hazards confront by
policy makers, the varying impact of disasters on distinct nations, and
the degree of vulnerability in other countries. Comparative work has
also been useful to understand emergency management organizations and
human behavior around the world. Researchers have likewise produced a
number of case and comparative studies which may facilitate
understanding of disaster and emergency management internationally. Each
of these areas will be discussed in turn.

**Hazards around the World**

First, the use of comparison helps us to better understand the disasters
that may affect nations around the world. The potential for disaster is
growing everywhere, but the types of events experienced are based on
each country\'s geography, their use of technology and many other
factors.

For instance, African nations face a vast variety of disasters. In 2003,
twenty-eight disasters were declared in Africa by the United Nations.
The continent is ravaged by floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes, and
food security emergencies. Moreover, the AIDS epidemic is running
rampant throughout many African nations. Of these, however, eleven were
complex emergencies. A complex emergency is often sparked by a natural
disaster and/or political, economic, or environmental stress. Complex
emergencies are also marked by political or military conflict that
impedes response and relief efforts (Minear and Weiss, 1995, p. 17).

While Africa is overwhelmingly afflicted with complex emergencies, Asia
declared only two in 2003. Asian nations more commonly face
hydrometeorological hazards. Floods have been the cause of disaster
situations in Vietnam, Indonesia, China, and Sri Lanka. Typhoons have
wreaked havoc in Korea, Fiji, and the Solomon Islands. In addition to
floods and typhoons, drought and epidemics are also a common problem for
Asian nations.

Europe and the Middle East have had to deal with terrorism as a rising
source of disaster. Suicide bombers in England, Spain, and Israel have
all forced emergency personnel to reevaluate their methods in mitigating
and responding to terrorists. In addition to terrorism, fire, floods,
and shipping accidents have been the cause of disasters throughout these
areas.

In Latin America, geological disasters are declared with some frequency.
Ecuador, Chile, Costa Rica, and Mexico have had issues with volcanoes.
Mexico has also been damaged by earthquakes. Floods, droughts, and
hurricanes also pose threats for countries in this area.

In North America, the United States faces hazards such as terrorism,
earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados. Earthquakes are commonplace in
California, tornados ravage the Midwest, and hurricanes menace the
Eastern and Gulf coasts. Indeed, the variation of climates and geography
make it vulnerable to all types of disasters. Terrorism has risen to new
heights of awareness since the coordinated attacks of 9/11. Canada also
is at risk from similar hazards. In addition, their northern location
presents them with severe winter storms.

**Impact of Disasters**

Disasters have plagued mankind throughout history. Indeed, tales of
floods and famines have been passed down for generations. In this modern
age, the occurrence of disasters has only become more frequent. The
United Nations reports a steady increase of disasters across the globe
(UNISDR, 2004). The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
operates under the mandate to "enable all societies to become resilient
to the effects of natural hazards and related technological and
environmental disasters, in order to reduce human, economic, and social
losses" (UNISDR, 2005). As this trend continues it is important to
identify how various nations are affected. In comparing disasters in
developed versus underdeveloped countries, it becomes clear that the
effects of disaster are not uniform.

The UN/ISDR reports that the countries most severely affected by
disasters are of low or medium income, and rank low on the scale of
human development. Approximately 80% of disasters are in predominantly
developing areas (Alexander, 1991, p. 212). When disasters strike a
developing nation, a high number of human deaths result. The top 25
countries that experienced the highest numbers of people both affected
and killed by disasters between 1994-2003 were all developing nations
(see appendix A). As an example, the tsunami that hit Asia in December
2004 left close to 200,000 people dead, and 100,000 missing (USAID,
2005, p.1). Mileti and his colleagues say that "losses from natural
disasters occur because of development that is unsustainable" (1995, p.
122). This means that land use planning is lacking, that basic needs are
not being met, and that the environment is being degraded. Other reports
reveal that underdeveloped nations tend to focus their resources on
issues apart from disaster preparedness, and only deal with a disaster
after it hits (Aleskerov *et al.*, 2005, p. 256).

While disasters strike the developing world with alarming regularity,
they also ravage developed nations. However, developed nations are
impacted by fifteen percent of disasters, and their death toll accounts
for only 1.8 percent of the total deaths (United Nations, 2004). The
effects of disasters in developed nations are felt more strongly in the
economic sector, although the strength of their economies are better
able to absorb such high losses. During the period of 1994-2003, the
countries that suffered the highest economic loss were the United States
and Japan (see appendix B). As an example, after the attack on New York
City's World Trade Center, the economic impact was felt much beyond the
destruction of the buildings. Economic damage and loss estimates range
up into the billions of dollars (Cochrane, 2004, p 293). More recently,
the death toll projections from Hurricane Katrina were initially
reported in the ten thousands. However, as recovery progressed the toll
did not reach the one thousand mark. Instead, the economic factors were
more prevalent as major ports in New Orleans were shut down, impacting
the shipping and oil companies as well as the tourism industry. Total
costs are estimated at \$150 to \$200 billion. Thus, disasters affect
all nations but in very different ways.

**The Vulnerability of Nations**

The distinct impact of disasters is a result of the nature and degree of
vulnerability. Vulnerability is defined as a measure of proneness to
disaster along with the ability to effectively withstand or react to
their adverse consequences (see Watts and Bohle 1993; Comfort et. al.
1999; Wisner et. al. 2004). McEntire (2004) describes this proneness in
terms of the liabilities of risk and susceptibility, and he explains
that coping ability is determined by the degree of resistance and
resilience. This model consequently captures both the positive and
negative features associated with the physical and social environments,
and includes variables such as land use planning, politics, economics,
culture, psychology, engineering, and institutions. Development can also
be linked both positively and negatively to vulnerability (McEntire,
2004). Researchers report that countries with middle and low human
development have a higher incidence of disasters (see Appendix C), which
is particularly evident in 1999. This disparity is a product of social
systems being more vulnerable than others.

As indicated previously, developed nations do not reflect casualties as
heavily as developing nations. Their vulnerability is lower because of
their ability to acquire and employ greater resources. The wealth of
developed nations allows them to allocate funds for mitigation and
preparedness measures. As an example, studies are often funded in these
countries to identify hazard-prone areas and recommend appropriate
measures for protection. Elaborate training systems are created to
prepare disaster response teams in developed nations. Everyone from
first responders to community volunteers can access training to more
quickly and efficiently respond to a crisis. Furthermore, education and
technology are relied upon in these countries to develop warning systems
for the general public.

Australia, Sweden, and the United States are examples of developed
nations that have advanced emergency management institutions.
Australia's national government has an emergency management program that
focuses heavily on using education to reduce vulnerability. The United
States is now requiring that communities develop mitigation action plans
to address rising disaster losses and it is giving special attention to
WMD preparedness. SEMA, the Swedish Emergency Management Agency, takes
responsibility to effectively coordinate their society's ability to
respond to crises. However, mistakes are still made frequently in
developed nations and they have a bearing on vulnerability. For
instance, beachfront property is a luxury commodity for the wealthy and
such locations are at risk due to hurricanes. People also increase their
vulnerability by building their communities on fault lines or near
industrial centers. Developed nations do not have perfect emergency
management programs.

In comparison to developed nations, developing countries typically lack
education, funding, and equipment to reduce their vulnerability. In
Botswana, Africa, AIDS spreads quickly because of a lack of education
about the transmission of the disease. Developing societies are
vulnerable to other hazards because of their impoverished living
conditions and weak warning systems. Building codes are rarely
established or enforced in developing nations. For instance, squatter
towns in Bhopal, India, built near the Union Carbide chemical plant,
were partly responsible for the high death rate when poisonous gas
leaked from the facility in 1984. Villages on the coast of Thailand, Sri
Lanka, and India were washed away during the Tsunami of 2005 because of
their dangerous location and primitive construction. Nepal has
institutions that focus on landslide management and floods, but they
have not established a joint, integrated warning system and
vulnerability is not addressed (Paudel, 2003, p. 481).

Both developed and developing nations are affected by technology,
industry, and culture. Developed nations are facing increased
technological disasters as computers become more integrated into every
part of their lives. Developing nations, on the other hand, may lack the
familiarity with new forms of technology that could reduce or cause
disasters. Each group faces adverse risks associated with hazardous
material incidents, even though manufacturing plants are increasingly
being moved to the developing world. People and governments in both
developed and developing nations continue to make mistakes regarding
disasters. They each can be found guilty of downplaying risk, augmenting
social susceptibility, relying too heavily on technical remedies, and
failing to strengthen emergency management institutions.

**Organization of Emergency Management**

There are relatively few studies about official disaster organizations
and activities around the world, but there are some notable exceptions.
Benjamin McLuckie completed one of the earliest comparative studies of
official emergency management organizations while he was a Ph.D.
candidate at the Disaster Research Center. His study examined the
disaster management organizations in Japan, Italy, and the United States
(1970). McLuckie's research indicated that, in times of disaster, the
United States maintained a more decentralized authority structure when
compared with Italy or Japan. He recognized that organizational
arrangement can potentially have a dramatic influence on the
effectiveness of disaster organizations because it determines the speed
of response. Other studies about Russia, the United Kingdom, Australia,
and New Zealand, have been conducted by Porfiriev (1999), O'Brien and
Read (2005), Gabriel (2002), and Britton and Clark (2000).

During the Cold War, Russia had a strong emphasis on civil protection
because of the threat of nuclear attack from the U.S. Nuclear fall-out
shelters and evacuation procedures were emphasized because of the
immediate crisis and threat of mutual destruction. As Cold War
hostilities dissipated, Russia began to produce legislation to revamp
emergency management. The Russian government realized that effective
emergency management required a structured, developed system. Russia is
now integrating additional mitigation and preparedness measures into
their programs, thus becoming more pro-active than reactive in their
strategies (Porfiriev, 1999b, p. 1).

The United Kingdom labels their emergency management program in terms of
a laudable goal: the UK Resilience. In 2004, the United Kingdom passed
the Civil Contingencies Act. The Act was responsible for redefining
emergency management methods, including roles, responsibilities,
training, and powers (O-Brien and Read, 2005). UK Resilience gives local
governments the authority to handle issues at their level. However, it
is still unclear to whom the local authorities should report and
information does not flow smoothly between the national and local
authorities. This has a potential to create confusion when disaster
strikes. As such, there have been questions about the UK Resilience
approach (O-Brien and Read, 2005, p. 356).

Australia, similar to the UK, has developed an emergency management
program that focuses on resilience. The Australian Emergency Management
Agency (EMA) does not respond directly to emergencies. Rather, as an
agency of the commonwealth, it provides resources, finances, training,
and research. Australia delegates responsibility for emergency
management to individual states and territories. It has only been
recently that Australia has begun to focus on prevention and mitigation
measures (Gabriel, 2002, p.296).

In the 1990s, New Zealand conducted a study of its emergency management
structure and found significant vulnerabilities that had never been
addressed. A task force was created to examine these potential problems.
It recommended that the government move "more quickly and farther into
areas of professional development" (Britton and Clark, 2000, p. 146).
Decision makers then redefined the roles and responsibilities of the
primary actors involved in emergency management, and created the
Ministry for Emergency Management in 1999. The new system was based on
principles that included an all-hazards approach, and involvement of
volunteer agencies and the community. The local governments were issued
the authority to handle emergencies, provided they had the capability
(Britton and Clark, 2000, p. 147).

Britton offers continued insight through his comparative studies of New
Zealand, Japan, and the Philippines. In comparison to New Zealand,
Japan's overall approach to emergency management is
"centralized/directive, fragmented, and reactive" (Britton, forthcoming,
p. 10). The Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act of 1959 defines the
disaster management policies for each level of government, and this act
has been revised in subsequent years (Britton, forthcoming, p. 11).
However, after the Kobe earthquake, "rivalry, competition and failure to
use designated focal agencies" was evidence that further measures still
needed to be taken to strengthen the emergency response plan (Britton,
forthcoming, p. 14). As a result, the 1998 Comprehensive National
Development Act identifies methods such as improved construction codes
and projects, research, and warning systems that will aid in making
Japan a safer and more resilient nation (Britton, forthcoming, p. 12).

The Philippines also has a centralized approach to national emergency
management. Their system, while more hierarchical than Japan and the
U.S., is also fragmented and reactive. President Quezon developed their
system after World War II. The National Disaster Coordinating Council
does not have its own budget; rather, it operates through various other
agencies (Britton, forthcoming, p. 21). While disaster management is
typically handled by the central government, the powers to focus on the
area of risk reduction are limited. The system lacks a comprehensive,
organized, proactive, and participatory structure. The Philippines has
been criticized by the World Bank for its ad-hoc approach to disasters
(Britton, forthcoming, p. 23).

There are other examples of comparative research. For instance, Newton
conducted a study of the United States and Canada. Although located on
the same continent, the vastness of both countries affects the natural
hazards they each face. Canada, in general, experiences less natural
hazards than the U.S. However, their northern location has caused them
to be more adaptive to severe weather (Newton, 1997, p. 225). The
Canadian emergency management program assigns responsibility to local,
provincial, and territorial governments. The emergency management
program chooses to focus on preparation initiatives rather than
mitigation directly (Newton, 1997, p. 226). The national government sets
standards, provides leadership, and attempts to oversee the development
of the overall ability to respond to a disaster. In contrast, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency of the United States created a
Mitigation Directorate in 1993. Consequently, the U.S. has seen a
reduction in fatalities and property loses generally attributed to its
mitigation programs (Newton, 1997, p. 228). Nevertheless, an argument
can be made that the focus on mitigation has waned in recent years due
to the threat of terrorism.

These studies reveal that the actors, organization, and activities
associated with disaster planning and management will vary according to
country. Hazards, culture, history, political objectives, and current
events influence emergency management organizations around the world.
Unfortunately, comparative studies of emergency management institutions
have been limited.

**Human Behavior**

Cross-national and international studies on emergence provide insight on
disaster response in various locations. Studies have been conducted in
Mexico, Russia, Japan, and the United States. For instance, after the
gasoline explosion in Guadalajara, Mexico, emergent behavior was similar
to patterns displayed in the United States. Aguirre *et. al* (1995)
study of that particular disaster underscores the importance of
pre-existing social organization. Those that responded and began search
and rescue efforts were generally immediate relatives and close friends
of victims. Scawthorn and Wenger (1990, p. 3) found that the first
people to respond in the U.S. and Mexico were part of extending or
emergent groups. However, there are also differences that can be noted
between the two countries.

In Mexico City's 1985 earthquake, the percentage of people who
volunteered their efforts was much smaller than in the U.S. Only 9.8
percent volunteered their services, though in real numbers this accounts
for 2 million people (Quarantelli, 1989, p. 2; see also Vigo and Wenger,
1994, p. 239; Wenger and James, 1990, p. 6; Scawthorn and Wenger, 1990,
p. 4). The emergent groups in Mexico typically converged from outside of
the impacted area. They were generally larger groups and tightly knit
socially (Vigo and Wenger, 1994, p. 240; Wenger, 1992, p. 5).
Quarantelli (1989, p. 6) likewise found that families played a greater
role in sheltering efforts in Mexico than in the U.S.

Behavior in Russia and the United States has also been compared. In
Russia, as in the U.S., emergent groups are the first to begin search
and rescue efforts (Porfiriev, 1996, p. 223). However, Porfieriev (1996)
notes that the organization in Russia is more centralized than those in
the U.S. The U.S. government has a fairly decentralized approach, but
Porfiriev (1996, p. 96) says his "government provided practically all
financial, material and a considerable part of the human resources
needed to cope" after an earthquake in the late 1990s. Looting was also
reported after this earthquake, a finding that contradicts previous
findings in the U.S. (Porfiriev, 1996, p. 223).

Similarities and differences between Japan and the U.S. have also been
examined. Both nations exhibit cooperative emergent phenomena after a
disaster. The Japanese Mafia (yamaguchigumi) even collaborated with
their government after a disaster (Comfort, 1996). It has been noted,
however, that emergent behavior is more likely to happen in the United
States than in Japan (Drabek, 1987, p. 278).

A final comparative study is between Italy and the U.S. Each nation
suffered a major flood: the U.S. in 1993 and Italy in 1994. Both nations
were quick to respond to the disaster. Survey results showed that while
the Americans affected were knowledgeable and prepared to recover, the
Italians were relatively unprepared to cope (Marincioni, 2001, p.217).
In both countries, emergent phenomenon was observed at the community
level (Marincioni, 2001, p. 219). Permanent volunteer organizations were
particularly useful in both countries. The established social
associations were remarkable in identifying and meeting the needs of the
affected populations (Marincioni, 2001, p. 219). The examples indicate
both similarities and differences in terms of human behavior in
disaster, and illustrate the need for further cross-national studies of
emergent behavior.

**Additional Case Studies and Comparative Research**

Much, if not most, of the research on disasters uses a case study
methodology. Case studies provide valuable information about particular
disaster situations. Researchers have examined many cases in the United
States. Robert Bolin's (1990) book about the Loma Prieta earthquake is
an excellent example. Part one of the book covers the economic and
social costs attributed to the quake, as well as information about how
it compares to previous earthquakes. Part two looks at organizational
behavior, psychological impacts, gender roles, and concludes with a look
at shelter and housing issues. The book therefore provides a detailed
discussion about emergency management issues after Loma Prieta.

Walter Peacock, Betty Hearn Morrow, and Hugh Gladwin edited the book
*Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disaster*
(1997). The socio-political ecology of Miami before the storm, warning
and evacuation procedures, and crisis decision-making are each examined.
In addition, sociological response of gendered groups, ethnic and racial
inequalities, and a variety of familial responses are also documented.
It is a must have for those interested in the topic of social
vulnerability.

*Beyond September 11^th^* is a third book that can be mentioned. Its
contributors examined issues in relation to the engineered environment
as it pertains to buildings and infrastructure, individual and
collective behavior, the roles of private sector groups, and finally the
public policy and political contexts of the disaster. It is a very
comprehensive and multi-disciplinary assessment of the 9-11 terrorist
attacks.

There are other case studies written about particular functions within a
disaster. Benigno Aguirre (1988) discusses the lack of warnings before a
tornado in Saragosa, Texas. He relates effectiveness to the existence of
a common shared culture, and emphasizes the importance of adapting
warning systems to multicultural social contexts. Henry Fischer and his
colleagues (1995) focus their research on evacuations. They outline
various ways of increasing the likelihood of people heeding an
evacuation warning.

Organizations have also been the subject of case studies. John
Broullette (1970) discussed how adaptation to disaster demands is best
accomplished by organizations that have material and personnel resources
maintained and ready to utilize. Will Kennedy (1970) studied the
organization and tasks of police departments in times of disaster. E.L.
Quarantelli (1970) focused his research on community hospitals and the
problems they must address in dealing with disaster scenarios. Martin
Smith (1978) examined the response of various religious organizations
after a tornado in Ohio.

Researchers have conducted case studies regarding management issues.
Brenda Phillips (1993) looks at the impact of gender and diversity in
relation to disaster response operations. James Kendra and Trisha
Wachtendorf (2003) focus their case study on elements of resilience
present in New York City's emergency operations center after the attacks
of 9-11 and note that creativity is extremely beneficial. Robert Bolin
and Lois Stanford (1998) examine community response to unmet needs after
the Northridge earthquake response. Richard Olson, Robert Olson, and
Vincent Garanski (1998) use their case study of the Loma Prieta
earthquake to stress that the recovery period offers the greatest
opportunity for mitigation. Swaroop Reddy's (2000) article examined
Hurricane Hugo and addresses factors that foster mitigation measures
during disaster recovery.

Case study research has also focused on disasters outside of the United
States. Stuart Batho, Gwyndaf Williams, and Lynne Russell (1999) looked
at the terrorist bombing of the Manchester City Centre in Manchester,
England. Their study uncovered the emergency responders' ability to deal
with the crisis immediately and then transition through the recovery
process.

Boris Porfiriev (1996) focused his case study on organizational response
to the Sakhalin earthquake. The paper covers social consequences of
organizational response based on one of the worst earthquakes in
Russia's history. Poor response or, in some cases, the inability to
respond on behalf of Russian emergency personnel, resulted in a lack of
communication about the earthquakes magnitude and destructive toll. This
impeded search and rescue and evacuation efforts, and exacerbated the
chaos of the disaster. Francis Terry (2001) looks at the rail disaster
in South London, and suggests the importance of exemplary safety
standards in such an industry. Pan Suk Kim and Jae Eun Lee (2001)
examine emergency management framework in South Korea. Traditionally,
emergency management in this country has focused on natural disasters.
The authors point out that it is necessary for the Korean Government to
also focus on mitigation and response for man-made disasters. During the
same year, Habib Zafarullah, Mohammad Habibur Rahman, and Mohammad
Mohabbat Khan (2001) studied the disaster management strategies in
Bangladesh. These scholars provide an overview of Bangladeshi disaster
management as it stands today, and also assess areas of weakness and
constraint that should be addressed.

Other case studies indicate the need for a holistic approach to
emergency management. McEntire (2003) looks at how social and physical
environmental interaction can lead to disasters. He based his work on
Hurricane Georges impact on the Dominican Republic. McEntire and
Christopher Fuller (2002) further examine the need for a holistic
theoretical viewpoint by studying Peru's El Niño disasters. Alpaslan
Özerdem and Sultan Barakat (2000) emphasize a similar theme in their
investigation of the 1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey.

Comparative studies have also been utilized to provide valuable
information on emergency management practices. Joseph Scanlon (1994)
compares the roles emergency operations centers in Canada and the United
States. Tricia Wachtendorf (2000) used comparison to study the response
of Canada and the United States to the flooding of the Red River in
1997. John Harrald and Hugh Stephens (2001) examined the maritime
transportation disaster caused by the explosion of two ships carrying
fertilizer in Texas City with the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Price
William Sound, Alaska. Frances Winslow (2001) analyzes the lessons that
can be drawn from the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Alice Fothergill, Enrique Maestas, and JoAnne DeRouen Darlington studied
vulnerable groups across disasters in the United States. They also
compare disaster response and its variation based on factors of
ethnicity and race. Dennis Mileti and Eve Passerini (1996) explore three
relocation decisions employed after earthquakes. Robert Bolin and
Patricia Bolton study the recovery of families in Managua, Nicaragua
versus the Rapid City, South Dakota. Richard Olson and A. Cooper Drury
(1997) use a cross-national analysis to compare political unrest that
occurs throughout societies after various disasters. Olson also teamed
up with Vincent Gawronski (2003) to contrast the 1972 earthquake in
Nicaragua with the 1985 earthquake in Mexico City. They find that the
Nicaraguan earthquake forced the government to shift its focus and
goals, while, surprisingly, the Mexico City earthquake had no such
effect on its government. Tim Ziaukas (2001) investigates the public
relations aspects of disaster response between the Bhopal chemical
release with the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Ronald Perry and Hirotada
Hirose (1991) look at volcano management in Japan contrasted with the
administration activities in the United States. Comparison has therefore
been utilized as a methodology in disaster and emergency management
research in the US and around the world.

**Discussion and Conclusion**

It should be readily apparent from this chapter that disaster studies
may gain much from the discipline of comparative politics. Its subjects
(e.g., political culture, socioeconomic status, interest groups,
institutions, public policy, decision making and development) have
recently been investigated by disaster researchers and many fruitful
avenues of research are being opened as a result. In addition, the
method of comparison allows us to comprehend the unique mix of hazards
that face countries around the world. It is also useful to understand
the impact of disasters on developed and developing nations, as well as
alternate explanations for their varying degrees of vulnerability.
Comparison likewise elucidates common and divergent behavioral patterns
in disasters, and enables a better understanding of emergency management
institutions internationally. The comparative method has certainly been
used by disaster scholars, with increasing frequency over time.
Nevertheless, we do have to be extremely careful to assume that
concepts, issues and variables are equivalent across cultures and
systems (Peacock 1997, 125).

There are also many opportunities to advance our knowledge about
disasters and emergency management activities by fully engaging the
comparative method. For instance, we need to learn more about the
similarities and differences of complex emergencies, terrorist attacks
and other types of disasters. Research is needed on varying levels of
vulnerability in the developed and developing worlds, and what we should
do about the disturbing trends that are confronting us. Furthermore,
there is a great deal of research on disasters in the United States and
select other countries (Dynes, 1988). Much less is known about emergency
management institutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America. While several
important case studies on disasters have been conducted, we lack
systematic information about these issues and events in other nations
around the world. More research will need to follow the excellent
comparative work presented in this chapter.

The major finding of this chapter, therefore, is that researchers must
fully recognize the value of comparison and do more to apply this method
in their future studies. Effectively utilizing the comparative method
will undoubtedly enable us to better comprehend the deadly, destructive
and disruptive events we call disasters. Comparison will also improve
the practice of emergency management as it permits us to learn from the
mistakes and success of others.

**Appendix A**

**Top 25 countries in absolute and relative values of people killed and
affected 1994 - 2003**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.936805555555556in"
height="6.998611111111111in"}

**Source of data:** EM-DAT : The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database.\
[http://www.em-dat.net](http://www.em-dat.net/), UCL - Brussels, Belgium

**Appendix B**

**Total amount of economic damages reported : all disasters\
1994 - 2003 (2003 US \$ billion)**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.729861111111111in"
height="4.604861111111111in"}

**Source of data:** EM-DAT : The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database.\
[http://www.em-dat.net](http://www.em-dat.net/), UCL - Brussels, Belgium

**Appendix C**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Total number of disasters by year 1994-2003\
  (according to human development aggregates)**

  ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.770833333333333in" height="3.21875in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Source of data:** EM-DAT : The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database.\
[http://www.em-dat.net](http://www.em-dat.net/), UCL - Brussels, Belgium

**References**

Aguirre, Benigno. 1988. "Feedback from the Field. The Lack of Warning
Before the Saragoso Tornado." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disaster* 6(1): 65-74.

Aleskerov, F., Say, A.I., Toker, A., Akin, H., Altay, G. 2005. "A
Cluster based decision support System for estimating earthquake damage
and casualties", *Journal of Disaster Studies And Policy Management*
29:256

Alexander, David. 1991. "Natural disasters: a framework for research and
teaching." *Disasters* 15: 209-26

Australian Emergency Management, 2005. "Emergency Management in
Australia." Accessed at <http://www.ema.gov.au/> on Oct. 2.

Batho, Stuart, Gwyndof Williams and Lynne Russell. 1999. "Crisis
Management to Controlled Recovery: The Emergency Planning Response to
the Bombing of Manchester City Centre." *Overseas Development
Institute.* 217-231.

Bill, James A. and Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. 1981. *Comparative Politics:
The Quest for Theory*. University Press of America: Lanham, MD.

Birkland, Thomas A. 1996. "Natural Disasters as Focusing Events: Policy
Communities and Political Response." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters* 14 (2): 221-243.

Bolin, Robert (ed.). 1990. *The Loma Prieta Earthquake Studies of
Short-Term Impacts.* Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.

Bolin, Robert and Lois Standford. 1998. "The Northridge Earthquake:
Community-based Approaches." *Disasters* 22(1): 21-38.

Britton, Neil. and Clark, Gerard. 2000. "From response to resilience:
emergency management reform in New Zealand." *Natural Hazards Review* 1
(3)" 145-150.

Britton, Neil. (forthcoming). "National Planning and Response: National
Systems" in *Handbook of Disaster Research*. Disaster Research Center:
University of Delaware.

Brouillette, John. 1970. "The Department of Public Works' Adaptation to
Disaster Demands." *American Behavioral Scientist.* 13(3): 369-379.

Bolin, Robert and Patricia Bolton. 1983. "Recovery in Nicaragua and the
U.S.A." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters*.
1:125-152.

Chirot, Daniel. 1994. "The East European Revolutions of 1989." Pp.
165-180 in Goldstone, Jack A. (ed.) *Revolutions: Theoretical,
Comparative and Historical Studies*. Harcourt Brace: Orlando, Fl.

Cochrane, Hal. 2004. "Economic loss: myth and measurement" *Disaster
Prevention and Management* 13: 290-296.

Collier, David. 1991. "The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change."
Pp. 7-31 in Rustow, Dankwart A. and Kenneth Paul Erickson (eds.)
*Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives*.
HarperCollins: New York.

Comfort, L. 1996. "Self-organization in disaster response: the Great
Hanshin, Japan Earthquake of January 17, 1995." *Quick Response Report
No. 78,* Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter., S. Pulwarty, R., Hewitt, K.,
Oliver-Smith, A., Wiener, J., Fordham., M., Peacock, W., and Krimgold,
F. 1999. \"Reframing Disaster Policy: The Global Evolution of Vulnerable
Communities.\" *Environmental Hazards* 1: 39-44

Drabek, T. 1987. "Emergent Structures", in Dynes, R., De Marchi, B. and
Pelanda, C. (Eds), *Sociology of Disasters: Contribution of Sociology to
Disaster Research,* Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 190-259.

Drabek, Thomas E. and Gerard J. Hoetmer. 1991. *Emergency Management:
Principles and Practices for Local Government.* ICMA: Washington, D.C.

Dror, Yehezkel. 1988. "Decision Making Under Disaster Conditions." Pp.
255-273 in Comfort, Louise (ed.) *Managing Disasters: Administrative and
Policy Strategies*. Duke University Press: Durham, N.C.

Dynes, Russell R. 1988. "Cross-cultural International Research:
Sociology and Disaster." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 6 (2): 101-129.

EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRD International Disaster Database. 2005. "Top 25
countries in absolute and relative values of people killed and affected
1994 -- 2003" Accessed at
[http://www.em-dat.net](http://www.em-dat.net/) on Sept. 20.

EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRD International Disaster Database. 2005. "Total
amount of economic damages reported : all disasters 1994 - 2003 (2003 US
\$ billion)" Accessed at [http://www.em-dat.net](http://www.em-dat.net/)
on Sept. 20.

EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRD International Disaster Database. 2005. **"**Total
number of disasters by year 1994-2003" Accessed at
[http://www.em-dat.net](http://www.em-dat.net/) on Oct. 2.

Fischer, H. George Stine, Brenda Stoker, Marna Trowbridge, and Eric
Drain. 1995. "Evacuation behaviour: why do some evacuate, while others
do not? A case study of the Ephrata, Pennsylvania evacuation." *Disaster
Prevention and Management.* 4(4): 30-36.

Fothergill, Alice, Enrique G.M. Maestas, and JoAnne DeRouen Darlington.
1999. "Race, Ethnicity, and Disasters in the United States: A Review of
Literature." *Disasters.* 23(2):156-173

Gabriel, Paul. 2002. "The development to municipal emergency management
planning in Victoria, Australia." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters* 20 (3): 293-307.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive
Theory of Culture." In *The Interpretation of Cultures*. Basic Books:
New York.

Green, Jerrold D. 1994. "Countermobilization in the Iranian Revolution."
Pp. 136-146 in Goldstone, Jack A. (ed.) *Revolutions: Theoretical,
Comparative and Historical Studies*. Harcourt Brace: Orlando, Fl.

Harrold, John and Hugh Stephens. "From Texas City to Exxon Valdez: What
Have We Learned About Managing Marine Disasters?" Pp. 231-44 in
*Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management*, edited by Ali Farazmand.
New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Hauss, Charles. 1997. *Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to
Global Challenges*. West Publishing Company: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Hugh Heclo and Carolyn Teich Adams. 1990.
*Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in America,
Europe and Japan*. St. Martin's Press: New York.

Homeland Security, National Response Plan. 2005. Accessed at
[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml on
Oct.
2](http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml on Oct. 2).

Kendra, James and Trisha Wachtendorf. 2003. "Elements of Resilience
after the World Trade Center Disaster: Reconstituting New York City's
Emergency Operations Centre." *Disasters* 27(1): 37-53.

Kennedy, W.C. 1970. "Police Departments: Organization and Tasks in
Disaster." *American Behavioral Scientist.* 13(3):354-361.

Kim, Pan Suk and Jae Eun Lee. 2001. "Emergency Management in Koria:
Mourning over Tragic Deaths." Pp. 501-19 in *Handbook of Crisis and
Emergency Management*, edited by Ali Farazmand. New York: Marcel Dekker,
Inc.

Lasswell, Harold D. 1968. "The Future of the Comparative Method."
*Comparative Politics* 1 (1): 3-18.

Lijphart, Arend. 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative
Method." *American Political Science Review* 65 (3): 682-693.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1990. *Continental Divide: The Values and
Institutions of the United States and Canada.* Routledge: New York.

Macridis, Roy. 1955. *The Study of Comparative Government*. Doubleday:
New York.

Marincioni, F. 2001. "A cross-cultural analysis of natural disaster
response: the northwest Italy floods of 1994 compared to the U.S.
Midwest floods of 1993." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 19 (2): 209-39.

McEntire, David A. 2001. "The Internationalization of Emergency
Management: Challenges and Opportunities Facing an Expanding
Profession." *International Association of Emergency Managers Bulletin*.
(October): 3-4.

McEntire, David A. 2004. \"Tenets of Vulnerability: An Assessment of a
Fundamental Disaster Concept.\" *Journal of Emergency Management* 2 (2):
23-29.

McEntire, David A. 2004. \"Development, Disasters and Vulnerability: A
Discussion of Divergent Theories and the need for their integration.\"
*Disaster Prevention and Management* 13 (3): 193-198.

McEntire, David. 2003. "Causation of catastrophe: Lessons from Hurricane
Georges." *Journal of Emergency Management.* 1(2): 22-29.

McEntire, David and Christopher Fuller. 2002. "The need for a holistic
theoretical approach: an examination from the El Niño disasters in
Peru." *Disaster Prevention and Management.* 11(2): 128-140.

Mileti, D.S., Darlington, J.D., Passaini, E., Forest, B.C., and Myers,
M.F. 1995. "Toward an integration of natural hazards and
sustainability", *Environmental Professional* 17:117-26.

Mileti, Dennis and Eve Passerini. 1996. "A Social Explanation of Urban
Relocation after Earthquakes." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters.* 14(1): 97-110.

Mileti, Dennis. 1999. *Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States*. Joseph Henry Press: Washington, D.C.

Minear, Larry. And Weiss, Thomas. 1995. *Mercy Under Fire: War and the
Global Humanitarian Community.* Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.

Monday, Jacquelyn (ed.). 2003. *Beyond September 11^th^: an account of
post-disaster research*. Boulder,CO: University of Colorado.

Newton, John. 1997. "Federal legislation for disaster mitigation: a
comparative assessment between Canada and the United States." *Natural
Hazards* 16: 219-241.

O-Brien, Geoff. and Read, Paul. 2005. "Future UK emergency management:
new wine, old skin?" *Disaster Prevention and Management* 14 (3):
353-361.

Olson, Richard Stuart and Vincent T. Gawronski. 1985. "Disasters as
Critical Junctures? Managua, Nicaragua 1972 and Mexico City 1985."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters.* 21(1): 5-35.

Olson, Richard Stuart and A. Cooper Drury. 1997. "Un-Therapeutic
Communities: A Cross-National Analysis of Post-Disaster Political
Unrest." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters.*
15(2): 221-238.

Olson, Richard, Robert Olson, and Vincent Gawronski. 1998. "Night and
Day: Mitigation Policymaking in Oakland, California Before and After the
Loma Prieta Disaster." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters*. 16(2): 145-179.

Özerdem, Alpaslan and Sultan Barakat. 2000. "After the Marmara
earthquake: lessons for avoiding short cuts to disasters." *Third World
Quarterly.* 21(3): 425-439.

Peacock, Walter, Betty Morrow and Hugh Gladwin. 1997. *Hurricane Andrew:
Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disasters*. Routledge: London.

Peacock, Walter. 1997. "Cross-national and Comparative Disaster
Research." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 15
(1): 117-133.

Perry, Ronald and Hirotada Hirose. 1991. *Volcano Management in the
United States and Japan*. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

Phillips, Brenda D. 1993. "Cultural Diversity in Disasters: Sheltering,
Housing and Long Term Recovery." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters* 11(1): 99-110.

Porfiriev, Boris. 1996. "Social Aftermanth and Organizational Response
to a Major Disaster: The Case of the 1995 Sakhalin Earthquake in
Russia." *Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management.* 4(4):
218-227.

Porfiriev, Boris. 1999. "Emergency and disaster legislation in Russia:
the key development trends and features." *The Australian Journal of
Emergency Management* 14 (1): 59-64.

Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. *The Logic of Comparative Social
Inquiry*. John Wiley: New York.

Quarantelli, E. L. 1970. "The Community General Hospital: Its immediate
problems in disaster." *American Behavioral Scientist.* 13(3): 380-391.

Quarantelli, E.L. 1989. "Human behavior in the Mexico City earthquake:
some implications from basic themes in survey findings", *Preliminary
Paper #37*, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, Newark,
DE.

Rustow, Dankwart A. and Kenneth P. Erickson. 1991. "Introduction." Pp.
1-4 in Rustow, Dankwart A. and Kenneth P. Erickson (eds.), *Comparative
Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives*. HarperCollins: New
York.

Sartori, Giovanni. 1991. "Comparing and Miscomparing." *Journal of
Theoretical Politics* 3 (3): 243-257.

Sartori, Giovanni (ed.). 1966. *Social Science Concepts: A Systemic
Analysis*. Yale University Press: New Haven.

Scanlon, Joseph. 1994. "The Role of EOCs in Emergency Management: A
Comparison of American and Canadian Experience." *International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters.* 12(1): 51-75.

Scawthorn, C. and Wenger. D. 1990. "Emergency response, planning and
search and rescue", *HHRC Publication 11p,* Hazard Reduction and
Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Schneider, Saundra K. 1995. *Flirting with Disaster: Public Management
in Crisis Situations*. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, New York.

Smith, Martin. 1978. "American Religious Organizations in Disaster: A
Study of Congregational Response to Disaster." *Mass Emergencies.* 3:
133-142.

Swaroop, Reddy. "Factors Influencing the Incorporation of Hazard
Mitigation During Recovery from Disaster." *Natural Hazards.* 22:
185-201.

Swedish Emergency Management, 2005. "SEMA Welcome." Accessed at
[http://www.krisberedskapsmyndigheten.se/defaultEN\_\_\_\_224.aspx on
Oct.
2](http://www.krisberedskapsmyndigheten.se/defaultEN____224.aspx on Oct. 2).

Terry, Francis. 2001. "The 1989 Rail Disaster at Clapham in South
London." Pp. 491-99 in *Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management*,
edited by Ali Farazmand. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

United Nations, ISDR, 2004. Disaster Occurrence. Accessed at
<http://www.unisdr.org/disaster-statistics/occurrence-trends-century.htm>
on Sept. 21.

United Nations. Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. 2005.
*Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development.* Accessed at
<http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/rdr.htm> on Sept. 21.

United Nations, ISDR, 2005. *Fact Sheet #39*. Accessed at
<http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/tsunami/pdf/Indian_Ocean_EQ_and_TS_FS39-05.06.05.pdf>
on Sept. 21.

United Nations, ISDR, 2005. Mission and Objectives. Accessed at
<http://www.unisdr.org/unisdr/eng/about_isdr/isdr-mission-objectives-eng.htm>
on Sept. 21

Wachtendorf, Tricia. 2000. "When Disasters Defy Borders: What We can
Learn from the Red River Flood about Transnational Disasters."
*Australian Journal of Emergency Management.* 15(3): 36-41.

Walker, Thomas W. 1994. "The Economic and Political Background." Pp.
147-159 in Goldstone, Jack A. (ed.) *Revolutions: Theoretical,
Comparative and Historical Studies*. Harcourt Brace: Orlando, Fl.

Watts, M.J. and Bohle, H.G. 1993. \"The Space of Vulnerability: The
Causal Structure of Hunger and Famine.\" *Progress in Human Geography*.
17: 43-67.

Wenger, D. 1992. "Emergent and volunteer behavior during disaster:
research findings and planning implications", *HHRC Publication 27P,*
Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX.

Wiarda, Howard J. 1993*. Introduction to Comparative Politics*:
*Concepts and Processes*. Wadsworth: Belmont, California.

Winslow, Francis. " Lessons Learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
Reactor Accidents" Pp. 481-90 in *Handbook of Crisis and Emergency
Management*, edited by Ali Farazmand. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon and Ian Davis. 2004. *At Risk:
Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters*. Routledge:
London.

Zafarullah, Habib, Mohammad Babibur Rahman, and Mohammad Mohabbat Khan
2001. "Coping with Calamities: Disaster Management in Bangladesh." Pp.
545-58 in *Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management*, edited by Ali
Farazmand. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Ziakas, Tim. 2001. "Environmental Public Relations and Crisis
Management: Two Paradigmatic Cases-Bhopal and Exxon." Pp. 245-57 in
*Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management*, edited by Ali Farazmand.
New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

[^1]: This is not to suggest that comparison is the best and only
    method. Peacock is correct to assert that "it would be bordering on
    methodological arrogance to suggest that certain forms of
    comparative research, be they characterized as qualitative,
    quantitative, case study, cross-national, time-series or
    longitudinal, or cross-sectional surveys, take precedence over
    others" (1997, 122). In addition, it is necessary to recognize that
    the research question should logically determine which method is
    prescribed.