Risk Management in the Public Sector: A Bibliographic Literature Review

This bibliographic literature review investigates the state of risk management in the public sector, focusing on its evolution, current trends, and future directions. The study aims to systematically synthesize the literature, identifying critical areas such as risk governance, resilience, and emergency management as central themes. The methodology involved retrieving data from primary academic sources like Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. Data was curated using specific keywords, peer-reviewed filters, and a timeframe from 2001 to 2024, ensuring relevancy and high-quality outputs.  The review highlights the increasing significance of risk management in the public sector, particularly in response to global challenges such as financial crises and the COVID-19 pandemic. Results reveal an expanding focus on public sector risk management, driven by recent global challenges and the integration of digital technologies. However, notable research gaps persist, particularly in areas such as advanced technology adoption, longitudinal impact studies, and cross-regional comparative analyses. Despite extensive research, gaps remain in integrating advanced technologies, longitudinal studies, and comparative analyses across different regions. This study provides valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners, emphasizing the need for innovative and adaptive risk management strategies to enhance public sector resilience. Future research should address these gaps, promoting resilience in public sector organizations and contributing to a more robust understanding of risk management dynamics in an increasingly uncertain world.

1. Alexander, D. (2002). Principles of emergency planning and management. Oxford University Press. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA74363638

2. Aven, T. (2015). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023

3. Boin, A., & McConnell, A. (2007). Preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns: the limits of crisis management and the need for resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2007.00504.x

4. Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5–6), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016680

5. Comfort, L. K., Boin, A., & Demchak, C. C. (2010). Designing resilience: preparing for extreme events. University of Pittsburgh Press eBooks. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB07157158

6. Drennan, L. T., Dudau, A., McConnell, A., & Stark, A. (2024). Risk and crisis management in the public sector. Taylor & Francis.

7. Hood, C. C., Rothstein, H., & Baldwin, R. (2004). The government of risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford University Press.

8. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00143739

9. Fletcher, K. C., & Stanton, T. H. (2019). Public sector Enterprise Risk management: Advancing Beyond the Basics. Routledge.

10. Kunreuther, H. (2002). Risk analysis and risk management in an uncertain world1. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00057

11. Larsson, A., & Teigland, R. (2019). Digital Transformation and Public Services (Open Access): Societal Impacts in Sweden and Beyond. Routledge.

12. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404

13. Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything: rethinking the politics of uncertainty. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/riskmanagementofeverything.pdf?1240939425

14. Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA8627946X

15. Slovic, P. (2016). The perception of risk. Routledge.

16. Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406