Towards a New Typology of Crises

‘All our ignorance brings us nearer to death’ sings the chorus in T.S. Eliot’s opus ‘The Rock’. It seems to be an elusive quest to judge if this statement is true in general, but without doubt ignorance concerning crisis management brings people affected by disasters or crises not only near to death but potentially kills them. So dealing with crises today is one of the high priority topics of policymakers, civil servants and executive staff. Also, scientific support is extensive and crisis researchers agree upon the point that still more has to be done to be prepared for future challenges in crisis management (e.g. Quarantelli, 1996; Boin and Lagadec, 2000). In this context, the continuous absence of a sufficient typology of crises and disasters is exceptionally painful (Quarantelli, 2001). If one wants to know how different types of crises develop, what kinds of problems surround them and, most important, how they can be handled, such a classification would surely be helpful by identifying common traits of different crises. Beside the obvious adaptability for practical use, such a typology could furthermore assist crisis researchers by coping with the future defiance caused by the simultaneous appearance of classic crises and the so called post-industrial, post-national crises (’t Hart, Heyse and Boin, 2001) by facilitating a more integrative approach to different crises. But classifying crises means shooting at a moving target as future events may differ from the incidents known today. Hence typologies which are appropriate at present may be only of limited use tomorrow, a difficulty making almost any classification approach to a transient procedure. Keeping these problems in mind, the article will deal with the following questions: