Table 1 Analytical framework... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Analytical framework

Vulnerability dimension	Field of enquiry	Type of vulnerability sources	Sources of vulnerability
(a) External institutional design	Administrative structure and fiscal rules	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Absence/limited rules on debt and deficit (Lodge and Hood, 2012) Lack of formalized spending reviews as a framework for annual budgets to increase efficiency (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020) Public sector audits which fail to scrutinize readiness for urgent crises concerning low probability – high impact events (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020)
(a) External institutional design	Administrative structure and fiscal rules	Lack of coping capacities	No/limited possibility to relax fiscal rules such as limits to current and capital expenditure financing, debt ceilings, balanced budget requirement, etc. (Barbera et al., 2017)
(a) External institutional design	Revenue structure	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Dependency on transfers and limited own resources (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Mikesell, 2013) Lack/limited cash and/or financial reserves (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017; Downing, 1991; Hochrainer, 2006; Jacob and Hendrick, 2012) Lack of anticipated approval of supplementary budget (Barbera et al., 2017) Lack of insurance for low probability – high impact events (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Hochrainer, 2006) Lack of provisions for contingent credit (Hochrainer, 2006)
(a) External institutional design	Revenue structure	Lack of coping capacities	No/limited possibility to sell assets (Barbera et al., 2017; Berne and Schramm, 1986) No/limited possibility of increasing fees and charges (Barbera et al., 2017) No/limited possibility increasing debts (loans) (Barbera et al., 2017; Berne and Schramm, 1986; Hochrainer, 2006)
(b) Internal financial condition	Expenditure structure	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Lack/little discretionary expenditures which can be cut/reduced (Maher et al., 2020)
(b) Internal financial condition	Expenditure structure	Lack of coping capacities	High proportion of rigid/sticky expenditure with no/limited possibility of directly reducing them (cost cuts, virements, deferring investments) (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017; Cohen et al., 2017; Hochrainer, 2006) No/limited possibility of moratorium on debt repayment or of changing the cash flow on debts covenants (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017) No/limited possibility of indirectly reducing expenditure (rationalizing services, managing demand, and increasing efficiency) (Barbera et al., 2017) No/limited possibility of cancellation of doubtful liabilities (Barbera et al., 2017)
(a) External institutional design	Vulnerability outlook	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Unavailability of relevant statistics, financial and other data (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020) No/limited financial planning, risk assessment, scenario analysis, and other monitoring tools (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017) Low environmental and self-awareness by municipalities (Barbera et al., 2017)
(b) Internal financial condition
(c) Perception of capacity to cope with crisis
(c) Perception of capacity to cope with crisis		Lack of coping capacities	Debt and deficit above generally accepted levels (Lodge and Hood, 2012; Capeci, 1994)

Vulnerability dimension	Field of enquiry	Type of vulnerability sources	Sources of vulnerability
(a) External institutional design	Administrative structure and fiscal rules	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Absence/limited rules on debt and deficit (Lodge and Hood, 2012) Lack of formalized spending reviews as a framework for annual budgets to increase efficiency (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020) Public sector audits which fail to scrutinize readiness for urgent crises concerning low probability – high impact events (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020)
(a) External institutional design	Administrative structure and fiscal rules	Lack of coping capacities	No/limited possibility to relax fiscal rules such as limits to current and capital expenditure financing, debt ceilings, balanced budget requirement, etc. (Barbera et al., 2017)
(a) External institutional design	Revenue structure	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Dependency on transfers and limited own resources (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Mikesell, 2013) Lack/limited cash and/or financial reserves (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017; Downing, 1991; Hochrainer, 2006; Jacob and Hendrick, 2012) Lack of anticipated approval of supplementary budget (Barbera et al., 2017) Lack of insurance for low probability – high impact events (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Hochrainer, 2006) Lack of provisions for contingent credit (Hochrainer, 2006)
(a) External institutional design	Revenue structure	Lack of coping capacities	No/limited possibility to sell assets (Barbera et al., 2017; Berne and Schramm, 1986) No/limited possibility of increasing fees and charges (Barbera et al., 2017) No/limited possibility increasing debts (loans) (Barbera et al., 2017; Berne and Schramm, 1986; Hochrainer, 2006)
(b) Internal financial condition	Expenditure structure	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Lack/little discretionary expenditures which can be cut/reduced (Maher et al., 2020)
(b) Internal financial condition	Expenditure structure	Lack of coping capacities	High proportion of rigid/sticky expenditure with no/limited possibility of directly reducing them (cost cuts, virements, deferring investments) (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017; Cohen et al., 2017; Hochrainer, 2006) No/limited possibility of moratorium on debt repayment or of changing the cash flow on debts covenants (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017) No/limited possibility of indirectly reducing expenditure (rationalizing services, managing demand, and increasing efficiency) (Barbera et al., 2017) No/limited possibility of cancellation of doubtful liabilities (Barbera et al., 2017)
(a) External institutional design	Vulnerability outlook	Lack of anticipatory capacities	Unavailability of relevant statistics, financial and other data (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020) No/limited financial planning, risk assessment, scenario analysis, and other monitoring tools (Ahrens and Ferry, 2020; Barbera et al., 2017) Low environmental and self-awareness by municipalities (Barbera et al., 2017)
(b) Internal financial condition
(c) Perception of capacity to cope with crisis
(c) Perception of capacity to cope with crisis		Lack of coping capacities	Debt and deficit above generally accepted levels (Lodge and Hood, 2012; Capeci, 1994)