Governance case studies
Case studies show how institutions actually governed a shared risk: who decided, on what evidence, what held and what failed. The Global Risks Forum (GRF) publishes case studies only when they are backed by sources a reader can check, and each states its lessons and its limits. A case study is a learning tool, not a judgement of the institutions involved or a recommendation to copy what they did. This page sets out the standard every case study must meet. Case studies are listed here as they pass review; none is listed yet.
- 01InstitutionThe Global Risks Forum (GRF)
- 02Service levelR0: information and enquiries
- 03In briefThe short answer
- 04The standardWhat every case study must contain
- 05AnatomyWhat a governance case study reconstructs
- 06SelectionWhich cases are worth writing
- 07Fair treatmentRules that protect the institutions and people involved
GRF · Institution · service level R0
The short answer.
GRF governance case studies show how institutions actually governed a shared risk: who decided, on what evidence, what held and what failed. Each is backed by sources a reader can check and states its lessons and limits; a case study is a learning tool, not a judgement of the institutions involved or a recommendation to copy them.
Jurisdictions in the Andes.
The jurisdictions that hold authority over this question: countries, their first-level divisions and capitals, shown for the Andes as an example geography for this subject.
What every case study must contain.
- 01
The question
The governance question the case illuminates, such as how decision rights were allocated or how warnings reached the people who needed them.
- 02
Sources
Primary and secondary sources a reader can check: official reports, inquiry findings, published evaluations and peer-reviewed analysis, cited for each claim.
- 03
The sequence
What happened, who decided what and when, kept separate from interpretation.
- 04
Lessons
What the case suggests about arrangements that held or failed, stated as lessons rather than verdicts.
- 05
Limits
What the sources cannot show, where accounts conflict and why the lessons may not transfer to another context.
What a governance case study reconstructs.
A governance case study is a reconstruction of decisions, not a narrative of the hazard. It sets out the decision points in order, the authority under which each was taken, the evidence available at that moment and what the decision holder could reasonably have known. That discipline follows after-action review practice in emergency management and the structure of public inquiries, which separate findings of fact from recommendations.
| Element | Question it answers | Typical source |
|---|---|---|
| Timeline of decisions | Who decided what, and when | Official logs, published orders, inquiry records |
| Authority | Under which law or mandate | Statutes, delegations, emergency declarations |
| Evidence at the time | What was known and by whom | Warnings issued, situation reports, model runs on file |
| Coordination | Which institutions talked, and through what channel | Coordination cell records, minutes |
| Outcome and correction | What held, what failed, what changed afterwards | Inquiry reports, revised plans |
Which cases are worth writing.
Cases are chosen for what they teach about cooperation across mandates: transboundary flood operations, cross-border health alerts, grid failures that crossed sectors, or recovery programmes in which national and local authority had to be reconciled. Public inquiries, ombudsman reports and peer reviews such as the OECD reviews of risk management policies are preferred sources because they are already tested. A case built on interviews alone is labelled as such.
Draft cases are shared with the institutions described for a factual accuracy check before release; disagreement on interpretation is recorded, not removed. Finished cases feed institutional learning and can seed scenarios for the exercise programme.
Rules that protect the institutions and people involved.
- The review is designed to invite institutions described in a case study to point out factual errors before publication, where practicable.
- Individuals are named only where their role is a matter of public record and relevant to the lesson.
- Community and Indigenous knowledge is used only under an agreed schedule and never enters public examples without consent.
- Hindsight is acknowledged: the case distinguishes what was knowable at the time from what is known now.
- A case study is never presented as a ranking, a rating or a finding of fault.
Where case studies come from.
From dialogue records
Cases proposed by participants in institutional dialogues, with their consent.
From after-action records
Lessons from Nexus Universe exercises, once reviewed and authorised for publication.
From published evidence
Cases built from public sources with The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI), which leads evidence and methods.
Case studies are reviewed before publication, and corrections are recorded as new versions through corrections and concerns.
Terms used on this page.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Comparative case study | Analysis of several cases chosen to compare how context affects an outcome. |
| Process tracing | A case-study method that reconstructs the sequence of events and reasons leading to a decision, testing which explanations the evidence supports. |
| Lessons learned | Documented knowledge from experience, positive or negative, recorded to change future practice. |
Where this page's references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
Why are no case studies listed?
Can my institution propose a case?
What if a case study gets the facts wrong?
Around GRF.
Start with an enquiry.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.