{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012015292190060076, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.785185185185185, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Political instability and the ability of local government to respond to reputational threats in unison

This article investigates whether local governments are able to act in a unified manner when responding to reputational threats posed by negative media coverage. Based on an argument that local governments facing political instability are less able to perform in unison, the article investigates a number of expectations, including various types of political instability (council, agenda and policy area instability) and their relation to different types of responses to negative media coverage from the political and administrative actors (communication behaviour, responsibility and blame-avoidant behaviour, and sanctioning behaviour). The article finds such relationships for some of these aspects. The analysis also indicates that the reputational history of a local government is related to the degree of unified behaviour. The empirical analysis is primarily based on a survey sent to all Danish public managers in the three upper levels of the local government hierarchy. Point for practitioners Reputation management has become an area for strategic management in the public sector, not least in local governments. This article demonstrates that public managers need to pay attention to the degree of political instability characterizing their local governments when dealing with reputational threats. If the local government is characterized by political instability, the need to address potential disagreements between administrative and political actors becomes vital. Furthermore, public managers need to take into account the reputational history of their organization as it may challenge the ability to coordinate a unified response across the political and administrative leadership during reputational threats.