Essay on Structure of Government and Nature of Preparedness and Response to Disaster

Disasters are common especially in the modern world where there are challenges such as climate change. For countries such as the US, the structure of the government is such that there are several levels of government, and laws exist on the responsibilities of each (Petersen & Library of Congress 2005). There are the federal, state and county levels of government and whenever there is a disaster, all of them have to act. They are also assisted by non-governmental organizations that ensure that there is an appropriate response.

The structure of the government determines the role of each level of government. The US system has an advantage especially when it comes to planning and preparedness considering that the local governments are more aware of the common disasters that may face their region, hence can plan in a better way on how they can respond. An example is the fact that there are some states and counties in the US that are prone to wild fires, floods and hurricanes and the local governments, aware of the common disasters, can come up with appropriate response strategies (Carsten, 2008). This is as opposed to where the disaster management and response are centralized such that some areas may be ignored in terms of preparedness due to lack of necessary information. For the purpose of planning, a decentralized system like that of US makes it easier because there is always the necessary information about potential disasters (Tiwari, 2015).

The other influence the structure has is that it avails various levels of expertise from different levels of government, where assistance can be offered to the local jurisdictions when need be. If a local unit is overwhelmed by the nature of the disaster, they can assess the situation and ask for assistance from the experts hence deal with disasters more effectively. The structure also ensures that there is a flow of resources from the various levels to ensure that there are appropriate response, planning, and recovery. This is for the common good of the whole region (Veenema, 2003).

The major adverse implication of the structure is that there is a lot of politics involved and it may delay the response, especially from the federal level. When congress has to meet and pass a bill to allow disbursement of resources, politics play in, and this may delay response. Additionally, the need to ensure the autonomy of each unit in such a structure as per the law may limit the extent to which each level of government plays their role. An example is when the president of US may not offer assistance unless the governor of the affected area has asked for assistance (Broder & Tucker, 2012).

The nature of preparedness and response impact the way the government frames their efforts. When there is proper sharing of information between various levels of government and organizations in regard to a particular disaster, then efforts are more effective in dealing with the disaster (Lindsay, 2012). This is because the resources are allocated in a more appropriate way such that the burden of response is shared and this ensures that the efforts by the various levels of government are more effective. This is as opposed to where there is lack of proper preparedness and response is no coordinated (Veenema, 2003). Such efforts may not be effective in responding to a disaster because there may be blame game and fear of violating the autonomy of other players in the disaster response. Duplication of efforts when there is lack of proper preparedness also leads to a less beneficial response.

In summary, the structure of government in a great way affects the response efforts when there are disasters. While there may be sharing of responsibilities when there is a good plan and sharing of information, different levels of governance may be the cause for confusion hence ineffective response to disasters (McEntire, 2014).

References

Broder, J. F., & Tucker, E. (2012). Emergency Management A Brief Introduction. Risk Analysis and the Security Survey, 101-112. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-382233-8.00012-1

Carsten, M. D. (2008). Global legal challenges: Command of the commons, strategic communications and natural disasters. Newport, RI: Naval War College.

Lindsay, Bruce R. (2012). Federal emergency management: A brief introduction. Washington, D.C.?: Congressional Research Service.

McEntire, D. A. (2014). Disaster response and recovery: Strategies and tactics for resilience. Hoboken: Wiley.

Petersen, R. E., & Library of Congress. (2005). Emergency preparedness and continuity of operations (COOP) planning in the Federal judiciary. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Tiwari, A. (2015). The capacity crisis in disaster risk management: Why disaster management capacity remains low in developing countries and what can be done. Cham: Springer.

Veenema, T. G. (2003). Disaster nursing and emergency preparedness for chemical, biological, and radiological terrorism and other hazards. New York: Springer Pub. Co.