Abstract
Risk management encompasses a series of strategies or models. Max Weber, for example, defines four risk management ‘ideal types’:
-
(a)
political regulatory process, including litigation;
-
(b)
public deliberation;
-
(c)
the technocratic /scientific perspective;
-
(d)
risk management on strict economic grounds.1
These ideal types can be represented graphically (see Figure 2.1). This graphic illustration originates from Parson’s description of society,2 which was then developed and refined by Ortwin Renn in a number of articles in the 1990s (the one published in German in 1996 is the most significant).3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
M. Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology (New York: Philosophical Library, 1962).
T.E. Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society (New York: Free Press, 1967).
O. Renn, ‘Die Austragung offentlicher Konflikte um Chemische Produkte oder Produktionsverfahren-eine soziologische Analyse’ (‘The conducting of public conflicts in the chemical area or the production procedure-an analysis’) in O. Renn and J. Hampel (eds), Kommunikation und Konflikt: Fallbeispiele aus der Chemie (Communication and conflict: Examples from the chemical area) (Wurzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann, 1996).
M.K. Landy, M.J. Roberts and S.R. Thomas, The Environmental Protection Agency. Ask the Wrong Questions from Nixon to Clinton (expanded edition) (New York: University Press, 1994).
House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee, Science in Society (London: House of Lords, 2000).
J.D. Graham and J.B. Wiener, Risk vs. Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
J. Ramsberg, Are All Lives of Equal Value: Studies of the Economics of Risk Regulation (Stockholm: Stockholm School for Economics, 1999).
S. Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993);
W.K. Viscusi, Rational Risk Policy: The 1996 Arne Ryde Memorial Lectures (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
D. Fahrni, An Outline History of Switzerland: From the Origins to the Present Day (Zurich: Pro Helvetia Arts Council, 1992).
O. Renn, T. Webler and R.E. Löfstedt, The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Models of Participation and Discourse in Risk Management (Stuttgart: Centre for Technology Assessment, 2000).
T. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York: W.W. Norton, 1979).
D. Fiorino, ‘Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review’. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 14 (1989), 501–47.
P.C. Dienel, Die Planungzelle (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1978); O. Renn, ‘A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management’, Environmental Science and Technology, 33:18, 3,049–55.
See, for example, RCEP, Setting Environmental Standards (London: The Stationery Office, 1998).
C. Chess and K. Purcell, ‘Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works?’, Environmental Science and Technology, 33:16, 2.685–92; O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation (Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1995).
NRC, Understanding Risk (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996).
N. Pidgeon, ‘Stakeholders, decisions and risk’, in A. Mosleh and R.A. Bari (eds), Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, PSAM 4, 3 (1997) 1,583–8;
J. Rossi, ‘Participation run amok: The costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decisionmaking’, Northwestern University Law Review, 92:1 (1997), 173–250.
B.R. Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984).
W.E. Wagner, ‘The science charade in toxic risk regulation’, Columbia Law Review, 95:77, 1,613–723 (1995) Brooks cited on p. 46.
M. Watts, Silent Violence Berkeley (University of California Press, 1983).
K. Shrader-Frechette, ‘Scientific method, anti-foundationalism, and public policy’, Risk: Issues in Health and Safety, 1 (1990), 23–41.
P. Slovic, ‘Perception of risk’, Science, 236 (1993), 280–85;
B. Wynne, ‘Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information’, Environment, 31:2 (1989), 10–15, 33–9;
B. Wynne, ‘May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide’, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds), Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (London: Sage, 1996).
B. Fischhoff, ‘Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process’, Risk Analysis, 15 (1995), 137–45;
W. Leiss, ‘Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545 (1996), 85–94;
NRC, Improving Risk Communication (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).
R. Adler and D. Pittle, ‘Cajolery and command: are education campaigns an adequate substitute for regulation? Yale Journal on Regulation, 2 (1984), 159–94;
P. Slovic and D. MacGregor, The Social Context of Risk Perception, (Decision Research, Eugene Oregon; 1984).
E. Siddall and C.R. Bennett, ‘A people-centered concept on society-wide risk management’, in R.S. McColl (ed.), Environmental Health Risks: Assessment and Management (Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press, 1987).
NRC, Understanding Risk; Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making, Final report (Washington, DC: 1997); Renn, Webler and Wiedemann, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation; RCEP, Setting Environmental Standards.
House of Lords, Science and Technology Select Committee, Science in Society (London: House of Lords, 2000).
S. Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Wynne, ‘May the sheep safely graze?’.
H. Brooks, ‘The resolution of technically intensive public policy disputes’, Science, Technology and Human Values, Winter (1984) 39-; M.G. Kweit and R.W. Kweit, ‘The politics of policy analysis: the role of citizen participation in analytic decision making’, in J. DeSario and S. Langton (eds), Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making (1987).
E. Aronson, The Social Animal (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1999).
Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle; S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990);
D. Vogel, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).
R. Pildes and C.R. Sunstein, ‘Reinventing the regulatory state’, University of Chicago Law Review, 62:1 (1995), 1–129.
Paraphrased from J.D. Graham and J.K. Hartwell, ‘The risk management approach’, in J.D. Graham and J.K. Hartwell (eds), The Greening of Industry: A Risk Management Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 1–2.
Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle; F.B. Cross, Legal Responses to Indoor Air Pollution (New York: Quorum Books, 1990);
F.B. Cross, ‘The public in risk control’, Environmental Law, 24 (1994), 888–969.
Brickman, Jasanoff and Ilgen, Controlling Chemicals; Federal Focus Inc., Toward Common Measures: Recommendations for a Presidential Executive Order in Environmental Risk Assessment and Risk Management Policy (Washington, DC: Federal Focus Inc., 1991).
J.D. Graham and J.K. Hartwell (eds), The Greening of Industry: A Risk Management Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997);
NRC, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983);
W. Ruckelshaus, ‘Science, risk and public policy’, Science, 221 (1983), 1,026–8.
W. Ruckelshaus, ‘Risk, science and democracy’, Issues in Science and Technology, 1:3 (1985), 19–38.
C. Anderson, ‘Cholera epidemic tied to risk miscalculation’, Nature, 354 (28 November 1991), 255.
S. Kelman, Regulating America, Regulating Sweden: A Comparative Study of Occupational Safety and Health Policy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981).
A. Gore, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less, Report of the National Performance Review (Washington: GPO, 1993);
D. Osborne and T. Gebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepeneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991).
D.A. Dana, ‘Review essay: setting environmental priorities: the promise of a bureaucratic solution: breaking the vicious circle: toward effective risk regulation’, Boston University Law Review, 74 (1994), 365-;
R.A. Pollak, ‘Regulating risks’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33 (1995), 179–91.
T. McGarity, ‘Substantive and procedural discretion in administrative resolution of science policy questions: Regulating carcinogens in EPA and OSHA’, Georgetown Law Journal, 67 (1979), 729-.
D.A. Wirth and E.K. Silbergeld, ‘Risk reform’, Columbia Law Review, 95 (1995), 1,857–95.
N. Ashford et al., ‘A hard look at federal regulation of formaldehyde: a departure from reasoned decisionmaking’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 7 (1983), 297-.
S.E. Gaines, ‘Science, politics and the management of toxic risks through law’, Jurimetrics Journal, 30 (1990), 271-.
W.E. Wagner, ‘The science charade in toxic risk regulation’, Columbia Law Review, 95:77 (1995), 1,613–723.
W. Freudenburg, ‘Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment’, Science, 242 (1988), 44–9.
L. Heinzerling, ‘Regulatory costs of mythic proportions’, Yale Law Journal, 107 (1988), 1,981-; L. Heinzerling, ‘Clean air and the constitution’, St Louis University Public Law Review, 20 (2001), 151-.
F. Ackerman and L. Heinzerling, Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing (New York, NY: The New Press, 2004).
Paraphrased from J.D. Graham, ‘The risk management approach’, in J. Graham and K. Hartwell (eds), The Greening of Industry: A Risk Management Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 3–4.
J.D. Graham (ed.), Preventing Automobile Injury: New Findings from Evaluation Research (Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1988).
W.K. Viscusi, J.M. Vernon and J. Harrington Jr, Economics of Regulation and Antitrust (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), 24.
For a detailed discussion see R.E. Löfstedt, ‘The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe: from precautionary principle to (regulatory) impact analysis’, in Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28:3 (2004), 237–60.
H.C. Kunreuther, R. Ginsberg, L. Miller, P. Sagi, P. Slovic, B. Borkin and N. Katz, Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons (New York: Wiley, 1978).
See the following, for example: R. Hahn, R. Lutter and W.K. Viscusi, Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality? (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2000);
C. Sunstein, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002);
W.K. Viscusi, Fatal Tradeoffs: Public and Private Responsibilities to Risk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992);
W.K. Viscusi, Rational Risk Policy: The 1996 Arne Ryde Memorial Lectures (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); A.L. Nichols and R.J. Zeckhauser, ‘The perils of prudence: how conservative risk assessments distort regulation’, Regulation, November/December (1986), 13–24;
R.J. Zeckhauser, ‘Procedures for valuing lives’, Public Policy, 23:4 (1975), 419–64.
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘Judgement under certainty: heuristics and biases’, Science, 185 (1974), 1,124–31.
For example, B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Combs, ‘How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits’, Policy Studies, 9 (1978), 127–52.
See also C. Sunstein, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decisionmaking (Washington, DC: Carnegie Commission, 1995); Nichols and Zeckhauser, ‘The perils of prudence’; Sunstein, Risk and Reason.
Hahn, Lutter and Viscusi, Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality?; T.O. Tengs, M.E. Adams, J.S. Pliskin, D.G. Safran, J.E. Siegel, M.C. Weinstein and J.D. Graham, Lutter and Viscusi, Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality?; T.O. Tengs, M.E. Adams, J.S. Pliskin, D.G. Safran, J.E. Siegel, M.C. Weinstein and J.D. Graham, ‘Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost effectiveness’, Risk Analysis, vol. 13 (1995), 369–90.
L. Heinzerling, ‘Political Science’, University of Chicago Law Review, 62 (1995), 449–73; Heinzerling, ‘Clean air and the constitution’.
C. Sunstein, ‘Democratizing America through law’, Suffolk University Law Review, 24 (1991), 949–80; Sunstein, Risk and Reason.
E.K. Silbergeld, ‘Risk assessment and risk management: an uneasy divorce’, in D.G. Mayo and R.D. Hommander (eds), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
L.H. Tribe, ‘Policy science: Analysis or ideology?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2 (1972), 66-.
For example, J. Adams, Risk (London: University College London Press, 1995);
B. Fischhoff, ‘Heuristics and biases in application’, in T. Gilovich et al. (eds), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Copyright information
© 2005 Ragnar E. Löfstedt
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Löfstedt, R.E. (2005). A Review of the Four Risk Management Strategies. In: Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503946_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503946_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-52594-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50394-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)