Advertisement

The Rational Actor Paradigm in Risk Theories: Analysis and Critique

  • Ortwin Renn
  • Carlo C. Jaeger
  • Eugene A. Rosa
  • Thomas Webler
Chapter

Abstract

Coping with risk has captured the attention of policy-makers and laypersons alike to become a pivotal topic for technological elites, as well as social thinkers. Technical experts — engineers, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and social scientists — and social theorists have been competing for public attention in the risk arena.1 A model of coexistence juxtaposing the technical understanding of risk and the social science perspective has emerged over the last two decades. Risk in this sense can be summarized as both a potential for harm, as well as a social construction of worry.2 Defining risk as a combination of hazard and outrage, as Peter Sandman has suggested, has been the fragile but prevailing compromise in this debate, at least in the United States.3 Although the formula of ‘risk equals hazard plus outrage’ does not provide answers of how to combine scientific assessments with public perceptions, it seemed to please the professional audience and was accepted as a conceptual guideline for risk management agencies. These agencies were well-advised to base their decisions on both expert assessments and public concerns, which was a common practice in risk analysis and management.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    For a philosophical appraisal of risk theories see K. Shrader-Frechette, Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 53ff.Google Scholar
  2. For a sociological review see S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds, Social Theories of Risk ( Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992 )Google Scholar
  3. J. Short and L. Clarke, ‘Social Organization and Risk,’ pp. 309–21 in J. Short and L. Clarke, eds, Organizations, Uncertainties, and Risk ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    Review of the implications of a constructivist versus a realist concept of risk can be found in: J. Bradbury, ‘The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk,’ Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14(4) (1989): 380–99;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. O. Renn, ‘Concepts of Risk: A Classification,’ pp. 53–79 in S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds, Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992); andGoogle Scholar
  6. E. Rosa, ‘Metatheoretical Foundations for Post-Normal Risk,’ Journal of Risk Research, 1 (1) (1998): 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. A pronounced constructivist approach can be found in B. Wynne, ‘Institutional Mythodologies and Dual Societies in the Management of Risk,’ pp. 178–204 in H. Kunreuther and E. Ley, eds, The Risk Analysis Controversy: An Institutional Perspective ( Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1982 );Google Scholar
  8. N. Luhmann, Risk: A Sociological Theory ( New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1993 );Google Scholar
  9. K. Japp, Soziologische Risikotheorie ( Munich: Juventa, 1996 ).Google Scholar
  10. Realist perspectives in the social sciences can be found in W. Catton, Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change ( Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980 );Google Scholar
  11. R. Dunlap, ‘Paradigmatic Change in Social Science: From Human Exemptionalism to an Ecological Paradigm,’ American Behavioral Scientist, 24 (1) (1980): 5–14;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Dickens, Society and Nature: Towards a Green Social Theory ( Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  13. 3.
    P. Sandman, ‘Hazard versus Outrage: A Conceptual Frame for Describing Public Perception of Risk,’ pp. 163–8 in H. Jungermann, R. Kasperson, and P. Wiedemann, eds, Risk Communication ( Jülich: Research Center, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  14. 4.
    J. Graham, ‘The Biases of Public Perception,’ SRA-Europe Meeting, Guildford: University of Surrey, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 5.
    D. Okrent, ‘Risk Perception Research Program and Applications: Have They Received Enough Peer Review?’ pp. 1255–9 in C. Cacciabue and I. Papazoglu, eds, Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management ESREL ‘86-PSAM ‘86 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1996).Google Scholar
  16. See also H. Sapolsky, ‘The Politics of Risk,’ Daedalus, 119 (4) (1991): 83–96.Google Scholar
  17. 6.
    For the United States refer to R. Zeckhauser and K. Viscusi, ‘The Risk Management Dilemma,’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545 (1996): 144–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 7.
    See the classic article by 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 Sciences, 9 (1978): 127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, ‘Rating the Risks,’ Environment, 21(3) (1979): 14–20, 36–9.Google Scholar
  20. For a critical review written at the time refer to H. Otway and K. Thomas, ‘Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy,’ Risk Analysis, 2 (11) (1982): 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 9.
    B. Fischhoff, ‘Public Values in Risk Research,’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545 (1996): 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 10.
    T. Dietz, P. Stern, and R. Rycroft, ‘Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk,’ Sociological Forum, 4 (1) (1989): 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 11.
    H. Margolis, Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), in particular pp. 214ff.Google Scholar
  24. 12.
    R. Kleim and I. Ludin, Reducing Project Risk (Aldershot: Gower, 1997), pp. 23ff.Google Scholar
  25. 14.
    R. Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  26. 15.
    See also D. Green and I. Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994 ), pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
  27. 16.
    Cf K.-D. Opp, The Rationality of Political Protest: A Comparative Analysis of Rational Choice Theory ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989 )Google Scholar
  28. K. D. Opp, Die Entstehung sozialer Normen: Ein Integrationsversuch soziologischer, sozialpsychologischer, und ökonomischer Erklärungen ( Tübingen: Mohr, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  29. 17.
    T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962 ).Google Scholar
  30. 18.
    Cf„ R. Abelson, ‘The Secret Existence of Expressive Behavior,’ pp. 25–36 in J. Friedman, ed., The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996 ).Google Scholar
  31. 19.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,’ Science, 185 (1974): 1124–31;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis in Behavioral Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World.Google Scholar
  33. 20.
    H. Jungermann, ‘Zur Wahrnehmung und Akzeptanz des Risikos von Grosstechnologien,’ Psychologische Rundschau, 23 (1982): 217–38, pp. 217ff.Google Scholar
  34. 21.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,’ pp. 67–84 in R. Hogarth and M. Reder, eds, Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  35. 23.
    W. Edwards, ‘How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking,’ SMC-7, IEEE, 1977.Google Scholar
  36. 24.
    H. Simon, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations ( New York: Basic Books, 1976 )Google Scholar
  37. A. Tversky, ‘Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,’ Psychological Review, 79 (1972): 281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 26.
    J. Weimann, Umweltökonomik: Eine theorieorientierte Einführung ( Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1991 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 27.
    C. Helmer, ‘Social Structure, Psychology, and the Estimation of Risk,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1988): 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 28.
    S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs, ‘Judged Frequency of Lethal Events,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4 (1978): 551–78.Google Scholar
  41. 30.
    S. Rayner, ‘Risk and Relativism in Science for Policy,’ pp. 5–23 in B. Johnson and V. Covello, eds, The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk ( Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 31.
    A. Giddens, ‘Living in a Post-Traditional Society,’ pp. 56–109 in U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition, and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  43. 32.
    K. Bailey, Sociology and the New Systems Theory (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), pp. 243ff.Google Scholar
  44. 33.
    N. Luhmann, Ökologische Kommunikation ( Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  45. 34.
    N. Luhmann, ‘The Autopoiesis of Social Systems,’ pp. 172–92 in R. Geyer and J. van der Zouven, eds, Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control, and Evolution of Self-Steering Systems ( London: Sage, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  46. 35.
    J. Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft ( Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1969 )Google Scholar
  47. M. McCarthy, The Group ( Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971 ).Google Scholar
  48. 36.
    A. Etzioni, A Responsive Society: Collected Essays on Guiding Deliberate Social Change ( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991 ).Google Scholar
  49. 37.
    J. Habermas and N. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie: Was leistet die Systemforschung? ( Franfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971 ).Google Scholar
  50. 38.
    H. Esser, Alltagshandeln und Verstehen: Zum Verhältnis von erklärender und verstehender Soziologie am Beispiel von Alfred Schuetz und ‘rational choice’ (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), pp. 40ff.Google Scholar
  51. 39.
    K. Dowding and D. King, ‘Introduction,’ pp. 1–19 in K. Dowding and D. King, eds, Preferences, Institutions, and Rational Choice ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  52. 40.
    J. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1990), pp. 138ff.Google Scholar
  53. 41.
    T. Parsons, The Social System ( Glencoe, NY: Free Press, 1951 ).Google Scholar
  54. 42.
    A. Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 43.
    A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ortwin Renn
  • Carlo C. Jaeger
  • Eugene A. Rosa
  • Thomas Webler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations