Seeking mechanisms underlying accountability in crises: A qualitative comparative analysis of 29 cases in China

Yanwei Li et al.

Public Policy and Administration2026https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767251414832article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Following crises, accountability invariably follows. Notably, the extant literature has largely overlooked the manner in which local governments enact crisis accountability during such events. Utilizing Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), this study investigates 29 safety crises across China. Drawing on principles from principal-agent theory and governance network theory, we examine how combinations of four conditions—namely hierarchical pressure, social pressure, crisis severity, and network complexity—result in varying levels of crisis accountability by local governments. The research identifies three principal mechanisms that elucidate high levels of crisis accountability: the reputation maintenance mechanism, the pressure-based mechanism, and the blame avoidance mechanism. Furthermore, the findings indicate that hierarchical pressure from the central government is the predominant factor influencing high crisis accountability. This study advances the governance and policy literature by elucidating the mechanisms underlying crisis accountability at the local government level.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767251414832

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{yanwei2026,
  title        = {{Seeking mechanisms underlying accountability in crises: A qualitative comparative analysis of 29 cases in China}},
  author       = {Yanwei Li et al.},
  journal      = {Public Policy and Administration},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767251414832},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Seeking mechanisms underlying accountability in crises: A qualitative comparative analysis of 29 cases in China

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.