Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) is the process by which military assets can be requested by civilian authorities, often by state or regional offices of emergency management. This request is in response to critical incidents, including natural and human caused disasters. However, little is understood about collaboration and cooperation between civil authorities and their military counterparts in terms of planning and training, especially in the unique circumstance of National Capital Region (NCR) where there are local, state, and federal civil authorities and military organizations. This is problematic, as a lack of training and preparation may result in delayed response to emergency incidents in the region, which may cause a disruption of government nationwide. Using Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith's advocacy coalition framework, the purpose of this case study of DSCA in the NCR was to gain insight on whether collaborative planning and training between civil and military partners has resulted in effective public policy that will guide decision making in the event of a natural or human caused disaster. Data were collected from a total of 15 participants who represented military and civil emergency managers. These data were deductively coded consistent with the elements of the policy advocacy framework, and then subjected to thematic analysis. Findings indicated that military members have a more thorough understanding of DSCA procedures, where civilian emergency managers had knowledge deficits regarding procedures and policies guiding DSCA support. The positive social change implications stemming from this study include recommendations to civil authorities to collaborate with the Department of Defense related to mobilization procedures and DSCA policies to promote seamless cooperation in the event of a major disaster.

This paper deals with the transformation of the institutional link between peripheral populations(rural and indigenous) and the state, in the context of the creation and implementationof a republican government trying to change former institutions and practices of the colonialPeruvian state. It addresses the transition from councils of Indians as instances of ethnic representationand local authority towards new forms of community representation, based onties of ownership rather than by jurisdictions. It is proposed that the transformation of indigenousgovernment institutions in rural areas of central and northern Peru went through three successive processes: 1) an initial stage of tolerance of two organization models of indigenousauthority, a modern one that adopted new republican institutional forms, and a traditional onethat replicated colonial self-government institutions; 2) an intermediate stage which sought toinstitutionalize the new authorities in the middle of disputes concerning territorial control andland property; and 3) the consolidation of the republican municipal model, marked by the expulsionof indigenous people and collective models of state government, which produced theseparation of spaces and jurisdictions between municipal authorities and landowners. / Este artículo aborda las transformaciones del vínculo institucional entre las poblacionesperiféricas (rurales e indígenas) y el Estado durante la creación e implementación de ungobierno republicano que intentaba cambiar las instituciones y prácticas del Estado colonialperuano. Desarrolla el tránsito de los cabildos de indios como instancias de representaciónétnica y de autoridad local hacia nuevas formas comunitarias de representación,fundadas en lazos de propiedad antes que por ámbitos jurisdiccionales. Propone que latransformación de las instituciones de gobierno indígena en los espacios rurales del centroy norte peruanos pasó por tres procesos sucesivos: 1) una etapa inicial de tolerancia de dosmodelos de organización de la autoridad indígena, uno moderno, que adoptó las nuevasformas institucionales republicanas y otro tradicional, que reprodujo las formas colonialesde autogobierno; 2) una etapa intermedia que buscó institucionalizar las nuevas autoridadesen medio de las disputas por el control y la propiedad del territorio; y 3) la consolidación delmodelo municipal republicano, marcado por la expulsión de los indígenas y los modeloscolectivos de gobierno del Estado, lo que generó la separación de espacios y jurisdiccionesentre la autoridad municipal y los propietarios territoriales.