The study of ideas and crisis in public policy and administration has generated two literatures with shared interests, but often distinct approaches. In this Symposium introduction, we argue that crisis studies and the "ideas school" have much to learn from each other. To facilitate cross-pollination, this article reviews key insights from the two literatures with relevance across the divide. In our view, crisis studies offer important parameters that can help realize some of the ambitions expressed in the ideas school, such as how different crises and crisis stages affect opportunities for institutional and policy change. Similarly, ideational studies show new ways for crisis scholars to approach coherence in coordination among crisis actors, network information, and public communication. We conclude by assessing the contribution of the three Symposium papers to drawing new links between the fields and suggest future avenues for research. | INTRODUCTIONCrisis and ideas are core subjects of study in public policy and administration. On the one hand, empirical and theoretical accounts have traced the management of economic and environmental crises, natural disasters, public health events, and terrorist attacks, to name a selection. Managing crisis is not simply about responding after an event, though active and coordinated crisis response is critical. It also includes a cycle of risk management and prevention, creating and maintaining preparedness, crisis detection and recognition, recovery and normalization, and evaluating

For several years, Australia has been regarded by some politicians and observers in Europe as a model for hard-line policies towards refugees. At the same time, Australia’s implementation of refugee externalization measures has been subject to considerable scholarly attention and critique. Although the Australian approach has featured prominently in political debates in several European states, this article analyses the implications of a possible adoption of the Australian offshore detention approach for refugee policy-making in the UK, and the consequences this will have for the integrity of the international refugee protection regime. The article considers how states might influence each other’s policies—both directly and indirectly—by focusing on a case study of offshore detention and processing with regard to Australia’s influence on—and similarity to—the UK, to the extent that we observe policy parallels, as the article brings to light substantial policy convergence of detrimental practice of these two countries.

No abstract