Catastrophic disasters are different than routine disasters and managing them requires the mobilization of inter-organizational, inter-governmental, cross-sectoral and international humanitarian support. The role of the international community through International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs), and multi-lateral organizations such as the United Nations (UN) becomes imperative when the scale of the disaster is unprecedented and difficult for a country to manage on its own. The initial response and relief phase of managing disasters is one in which many agencies with different expertise, capacities, working mandates, resources, skills, working cultures and norms come together to coordinate and collaborate to provide timely response and relief services. Thus, the terrain of managing catastrophic disasters is complex and requires a deeper study to understand and delineate the factors shaping and facilitating collaborative response and relief efforts. This study examines the multi-level and multi-layered collaborative response networks present at the national-international level, provincial and district/local level of disaster response and interactions. In this research the nature and effectiveness of collaboration is being studied through a relevant case study of a catastrophic natural disaster, the 2010 Pakistan Floods. The phase of immediate response is explored primarily through Network Theory perspectives including supportive theoretical perspectives such as Social Capital, Resource Dependency, and Institutional Collective Action Theory perspectives that help to explain collaborative interactions in disaster response networks. This study explores and describes factors that influence (either facilitate or hinder) collaboration is disaster response networks. iv The key research questions for this study are: What factors facilitate and impede collaborative response to catastrophic disasters at the local, provincial, national and international levels? What are the differences and similarities in response systems at different levels? Additional questions address how leadership support (attributed to government and political leaders and organizations), institutional support (in the form of plans, international appeals of response, and development of relief funds to manage aid), network capacity of different organizations (programmatic and relational), nature of resource dependencies between responding agencies, and structural configurations of response systems impact the collaborative response in disasters. A case study method has been applied in this research. The 2010 Pakistan Floods response network/system is identified through content analysis of various newspapers, situation reports and after-action reports using the Social Network Analysis (SNA) method via UCINET Software 6.1. The actual response network is analyzed and compared with existing national disaster response plans to examine the effectiveness of collaborative response through centrality measures, clique analysis and visual display. This approach is supplemented with semistructured interviews of key institutional representatives that responded to the 2010 Floods. These organizations and institutions were primarily identified through the networks formulated via SNA. Findings and results from the analysis reflect that the response networks at each level of analysis differ both in structural aspects and also in functional aspects. The nature of the international-national response system is focused on mobilizing donor support and receiving and v managing aid, both in-kind and cash. Also a major role at the international and national level is to mobilize the UN cluster approach and focus on broader aims of response such as providing shelter and food to affected areas. Some of the factors identified as facilitating collaborative response were leadership of both national and international leaders, and availability of donor support and funds. At the provincial level of analysis, the Chief Minister of Punjab is playing a central and influential role and is partnering closely with the Armed Forces and local district administration. Interviews conducted of provincial level officials help to support the hypotheses concerning leadership support’s influence on collaborative response and also the role of institutional support in the form of creation of plans, and policies that help to mobilize quick funds and resources for relief. At the local level of response, networks are highly influenced by local conditions and local capacities of the district administration. Thus, there are diverse factors impacting each level of collaborative disaster response. All in all, leadership support, institutional support and network structural aspects are important variables that impact the effectiveness of collaborative response. Today policy makers are trying to figure out ways to collaborate successfully across sector boundaries for better and effective service delivery, both in the mundane operational tasks and in uncertain and complex situations such as disasters and catastrophic events. Thus, this research helps in expanding the literature on collaborative public management, collaborative emergency management, and network management. Also the frequency of natural disasters throughout the world demonstrate the need to study and examine factors that contribute to or hinder the effectiveness of inter-organizational response in disasters.

Following unprecedented earthquakes in 1999, highly centralized Turkey initiated reforms that aimed to improve disaster management collaboration and to empower local authorities. In 2011, two earthquakes hit the country anew affecting the city of Van and town of Erciş in Turkey’s southeast. In attempts to reduce disaster risk, global disaster risk reduction frameworks and disaster scholars and practitioners advocate collaborative and decentralized disaster management strategies. This thesis investigates how such strategies are received in a centralized and hierarchical national political-administrative system that largely is the anti-thesis of the prescribed solutions. More specifically, this research investigates the barriers and prerequisites for disaster management collaboration between both public and civil society actors in Turkey (during preparedness, response, and recovery) as well as how Turkey’s political-administrative system affects disaster management collaboration and its outcomes. The challenges to decentralization of disaster management are also investigated. Based on forty-four interviews with actors ranging from national to village level and NGOs, the findings suggest that the political-administrative system can alter the relative importance, validity, and applicability of previously established enabling or constraining conditions for collaboration. This may in turn challenge previous theoretical assumptions regarding collaboration. By adopting a mode of collaboration that fit the wider political-administrative system, collaborative disaster management progress was achieved in Turkey’s national level activities. Although there were exceptions, collaboration spanning sectors and/or administrative levels were generally less forthcoming, partly due to the disjoint character of the political-administrative system. Political divergence between local and central actors made central-local collaboration difficult but these barriers were partly trumped by other prerequisites enabling collaboration like interdependence and pre-existing relations. The findings suggest that the specific attributes of disasters may both help and hinder disaster management collaboration. Such collaboration generally improved disaster response. The findings also indicate that the decentralization attempts may have been premature as the conditions for ensuring a functional decentralization of disaster management are presently lacking. Decentralization attempts are commonly suggested to increase local capacity and local participation but the findings of this dissertation suggest that in Turkey, these commodities may currently have better chances of being increased by refraining from decentralization.