Advertisement

Towards a Better Understanding of Blame Games

  • Sandra L. ResodihardjoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter starts with a brief description of how blame games work according to existing literature. Based on the findings from the previous chapter, more details are added to this description. These additions consist of four elements. First, presentational strategies can backfire (particularly in the case of letters and inquiries). Second, rituals can play a role in the way in which the blame game evolves. Third, context (including holidays, elections, and pensions) matter. Lastly, sub-blame games could have an impact on the original blame game by creating a temporary reprieve for those being blamed.

Keywords

Backfiring strategies Rituals Context Sub-blame games Tenure Pension 

References

  1. Bytzek, E. (2008). Flood response and political survival: Gerhard Schröder and the 2002 Elbe flood in Germany. In A. Boin, A. McConnell, & P. ’t Hart (Eds.), Governing after crisis. The politics of investigation, accountability and learning (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hood, C. (2011). The blame game. Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hood, C., Jennings, W., Dixon, R., Hogwood, B., & Beeston, C. (2009). Testing times: Exploring staged responses and the impact of blame management strategies in two examination fiasco cases. European Journal of Political Research, 48(6), 695–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McConnell, A. (2003). Overview: Crisis management, influences, responses and evaluation. Parliamentary Affairs, 56(3), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Resodihardjo, S. L. (2006). Wielding a double-edged sword: The use of inquiries at times of crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Resodihardjo, S. L., Carroll, B. J., Van Eijk, C. J. A., & Maris, S. (2016). Why traditional responses to blame games fail: The importance of context, rituals, and sub-blame games in the face of raves gone wrong. Public Administration, 94(2), 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Schwarz, A. (2012). How publics use social media to respond to blame games in crisis communication: The Love Parade tragedy in Duisburg 2010. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ’t Hart, P. (1993). Symbols, rituals and power: The lost dimensions of crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1(1), 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Weaver, R. K. (2018). The nays have it: How rampant blame generating distorts American policy and politics. Political Science Quarterly, 133(2), 259–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations