When health threats are mitigated, the emergency moves into what is known as the "recovery phase." During the recovery phase health officials communicate that the health threat has been mitigated and that the community will move toward a "new normal," express empathy, and continue to state the agency’s commitment to the community. Additionally, the health agency can engage in educating the public about lessons learned during the health response and how to prepare for future emergencies. This chapter outlines how to engage with policymakers after a health emergency. The chapter describes the importance of memorials during the recovery phase and how public health agencies can support communities that want to memorialize large-scale health emergencies. It will also address how agency leadership engages with staff as response operations de-escalate and surge staff return to their regular public health work. The chapter provides practical tips on how to write recovery messages and provides quick response communication planning and implementation steps such as identifying communication objectives, audiences, key messages, and channels and developing communication products/materials. This chapter also includes key tips related to spokespeople, partner agencies, and call centers to ensure message consistency is achieved during the response. Mindfulness is highlighted. A student case study analyzes the COVID-19 outbreak in Georgia using the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication framework. Reflection questions are included at the end of the chapter.

Chapter Five examines the role of international law in State Department policymaking. It describes the formal and informal decision-making processes within the State Department, focusing on the influential role of the Legal Adviser and the Legal Adviser’s Office. The chapter then examines closely the weight given by policymakers to legal advice and the nature of the interaction between policymakers and lawyers. Policymakers, at least at higher levels, generally have final decision-making authority, but the views of the Legal Adviser’s Office can be determinative in the relatively rare instances when the lawyers deem a course of action conclusively illegal. Otherwise, the lawyers’ advice is influential, but its weight may vary depending on the circumstances, including the nature of the national interest involved. Many former officials indicated that the development of policy was often a collaborative and constructive process. The lawyers were usually willing to work with policymakers, and they were often willing to find alternative courses of action within the law, though they would not usually budge on an interpretation of the law. Some former officials indicated that their relationship involved greater contestation, resembling a negotiation. When international law conflicted with significant policy interests, policymakers could sometimes seek to overcome those obstacles.

Relationality captures how people want others to relate to them, and how they will relate to diverse others, yet as this chapter shows “relating to others” may include many different elements and be person- and/or context-specific. This chapter uses interviews with nonprofit practitioners and researchers, and also national surveys of policymakers and AmeriCorps program leaders, to lay out some of the ways in which different kinds of people who seek change in civic life express uncertainty about relationality.

The book concludes with a discussion of the current state of gender-based violence in the United States while highlighting the specific landscape of advocacy organizations that are working in this space to serve intersectionally marginalized populations. The chapter elaborates on the challenges that remain for intersectional advocates as they intervene in this issue, as well as the possibilities that lie ahead for their advocacy efforts. These findings are not just applicable to policies and laws related to gender-based violence but are also valuable for identifying policy gaps in U.S. political institutions more generally. The chapter then gives a call-to-action to policymakers, advocacy organizations, foundations, and individuals to critically evaluate the current structure of U.S. policy institutions—who they benefit, who they represent, and to what extent they are ineffective for resolving some of our most pressing social issues. The call is accompanied with tangible examples of how these stakeholders can practice and support intersectional advocacy to change U.S. policy institutions to be more effective, equitable, and representative of an increasingly diverse democracy.

In Chapter 4, the applicability of this practice is considered by answering the question: to what extent does participation in intersectional advocacy vary depending on the level of government or political context where the advocacy takes place? Drawing from a qualitative analysis of 43 interviews with organizational leaders, this chapter presents how intersectional advocacy was applied at the municipal, state, and federal levels. This analysis shows that organizational leaders strategically established policy connections between gendered violence and unaffordable housing, inaccessible healthcare, and mass incarceration. The chapter then describes how issue and policy linkages vary across these problem areas and the level of government advocates are situated within. The types of institutional boundaries they encountered as they intervened in these policymaking processes are also described here. Ultimately, the chapter illustrates how the practice of intersectional advocacy transcended these three different levels of government, and that groups deployed different strategies depending on these varying contexts.

In Chapter 1, I address the continuing demand for a moral foundation for capitalism from the perspective of business leaders, business educators, and policymakers. These parties have been heavily impacted by the neoclassical economic view of capitalism based on narrow self-interest. I begin by discussing the demand for a moral foundation from the perspective of business leaders attempting to return to the stakeholder view of corporate responsibility that existed before the influence of the Chicago School. Next, I discuss the demand from the perspective of business educators attempting to return to the moral foundation provided by the early founders of the university-based business school. Finally, I discuss the demand from the perspective of policymakers attempting to return to an enlightened public policy that meets the broader needs of capitalist society. I conclude by outlining the leading characters and themes contained in this book. The search for a moral foundation for capitalism is not new. It has a long history going back to Adam Smith and the Scottish Enlightenment. The purpose of this book is to tell the story of this search through the lives and writings of its leading characters.

The concluding chapter draws out the implications of our findings for scholars and policymakers. First, it identifies key patterns in our findings and proposes hypotheses for further research. Inductively, it suggests that the degree of Chinese policy coherence reflects whether coordinating mechanisms are deployed and effective, and whether powerful domestic interests align. It argues that our conceptualisation of the Chinese party-state does not necessarily mean that Chinese behaviour is unproblematic – but that it may emerge for reasons not anticipated by traditional models. And it emphasises the crucial importance of partner/recipient countries in shaping the outcomes of Chinese overseas engagements. Secondly, the chapter draws out recommendations for policymakers in China and elsewhere. We argue that responding to China’s rise as though it was a strategically guided monolith is clearly mistaken, requiring a more nuanced and sophisticated approach. We also urge Chinese policymakers to be more open about the limitations of Chinese governance and to attempt more decisive state reforms. In a final postscript, we offer some thoughts about what light the state transformation framework can shed on the COVID-19 pandemic.