Advertisement

A Review of the Four Risk Management Strategies

  • Ragnar E. Löfstedt

Abstract

Risk management encompasses a series of strategies or models. Max Weber, for example, defines four risk management ‘ideal types’:
  1. (a)

    political regulatory process, including litigation;

     
  2. (b)

    public deliberation;

     
  3. (c)

    the technocratic /scientific perspective;

     
  4. (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

Keywords

Environmental Protection Agency Public Participation Risk Communication Ideal Type Risk Management Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    M. Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology (New York: Philosophical Library, 1962).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.E. Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society (New York: Free Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee, Science in Society (London: House of Lords, 2000).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.D. Graham and J.B. Wiener, Risk vs. Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Ramsberg, Are All Lives of Equal Value: Studies of the Economics of Risk Regulation (Stockholm: Stockholm School for Economics, 1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993);Google Scholar
  9. W.K. Viscusi, Rational Risk Policy: The 1996 Arne Ryde Memorial Lectures (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    D. Fahrni, An Outline History of Switzerland: From the Origins to the Present Day (Zurich: Pro Helvetia Arts Council, 1992).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    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).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York: W.W. Norton, 1979).Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    D. Fiorino, ‘Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review’. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 14 (1989), 501–47.Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 17.
    See, for example, RCEP, Setting Environmental Standards (London: The Stationery Office, 1998).Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 19.
    NRC, Understanding Risk (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    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;Google Scholar
  19. J. Rossi, ‘Participation run amok: The costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decisionmaking’, Northwestern University Law Review, 92:1 (1997), 173–250.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    B.R. Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    W.E. Wagner, ‘The science charade in toxic risk regulation’, Columbia Law Review, 95:77, 1,613–723 (1995) Brooks cited on p. 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 24.
    M. Watts, Silent Violence Berkeley (University of California Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    K. Shrader-Frechette, ‘Scientific method, anti-foundationalism, and public policy’, Risk: Issues in Health and Safety, 1 (1990), 23–41.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    P. Slovic, ‘Perception of risk’, Science, 236 (1993), 280–85;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. B. Wynne, ‘Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information’, Environment, 31:2 (1989), 10–15, 33–9;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Fischhoff, ‘Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process’, Risk Analysis, 15 (1995), 137–45;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NRC, Improving Risk Communication (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    R. Adler and D. Pittle, ‘Cajolery and command: are education campaigns an adequate substitute for regulation? Yale Journal on Regulation, 2 (1984), 159–94;Google Scholar
  31. P. Slovic and D. MacGregor, The Social Context of Risk Perception, (Decision Research, Eugene Oregon; 1984).Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    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).Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    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.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    House of Lords, Science and Technology Select Committee, Science in Society (London: House of Lords, 2000).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Wynne, ‘May the sheep safely graze?’.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    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).Google Scholar
  37. 43.
    E. Aronson, The Social Animal (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1999).Google Scholar
  38. 44.
    Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle; S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990);Google Scholar
  39. D. Vogel, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  40. 49.
    R. Pildes and C.R. Sunstein, ‘Reinventing the regulatory state’, University of Chicago Law Review, 62:1 (1995), 1–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 52.
    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.Google Scholar
  42. 53.
    Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle; F.B. Cross, Legal Responses to Indoor Air Pollution (New York: Quorum Books, 1990);Google Scholar
  43. F.B. Cross, ‘The public in risk control’, Environmental Law, 24 (1994), 888–969.Google Scholar
  44. 54.
    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).Google Scholar
  45. 55.
    J.D. Graham and J.K. Hartwell (eds), The Greening of Industry: A Risk Management Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997);Google Scholar
  46. NRC, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983);Google Scholar
  47. W. Ruckelshaus, ‘Science, risk and public policy’, Science, 221 (1983), 1,026–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. W. Ruckelshaus, ‘Risk, science and democracy’, Issues in Science and Technology, 1:3 (1985), 19–38.Google Scholar
  49. 57.
    C. Anderson, ‘Cholera epidemic tied to risk miscalculation’, Nature, 354 (28 November 1991), 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 59.
    S. Kelman, Regulating America, Regulating Sweden: A Comparative Study of Occupational Safety and Health Policy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  51. 61.
    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);Google Scholar
  52. D. Osborne and T. Gebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepeneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991).Google Scholar
  53. 64.
    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-;Google Scholar
  54. R.A. Pollak, ‘Regulating risks’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33 (1995), 179–91.Google Scholar
  55. 65.
    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-.Google Scholar
  56. 66.
    D.A. Wirth and E.K. Silbergeld, ‘Risk reform’, Columbia Law Review, 95 (1995), 1,857–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 67.
    N. Ashford et al., ‘A hard look at federal regulation of formaldehyde: a departure from reasoned decisionmaking’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 7 (1983), 297-.Google Scholar
  58. 68.
    S.E. Gaines, ‘Science, politics and the management of toxic risks through law’, Jurimetrics Journal, 30 (1990), 271-.Google Scholar
  59. 69.
    W.E. Wagner, ‘The science charade in toxic risk regulation’, Columbia Law Review, 95:77 (1995), 1,613–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 70.
    W. Freudenburg, ‘Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment’, Science, 242 (1988), 44–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 71.
    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-.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. F. Ackerman and L. Heinzerling, Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing (New York, NY: The New Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  63. 72.
    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.Google Scholar
  64. 73.
    J.D. Graham (ed.), Preventing Automobile Injury: New Findings from Evaluation Research (Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1988).Google Scholar
  65. 74.
    W.K. Viscusi, J.M. Vernon and J. Harrington Jr, Economics of Regulation and Antitrust (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), 24.Google Scholar
  66. 78.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 79.
    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).Google Scholar
  68. 80.
    See the following, for example: R. Hahn, R. Lutter and W.K. Viscusi, Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality? (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2000);Google Scholar
  69. C. Sunstein, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002);Google Scholar
  70. W.K. Viscusi, Fatal Tradeoffs: Public and Private Responsibilities to Risk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992);Google Scholar
  71. 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;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. R.J. Zeckhauser, ‘Procedures for valuing lives’, Public Policy, 23:4 (1975), 419–64.Google Scholar
  73. 83.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘Judgement under certainty: heuristics and biases’, Science, 185 (1974), 1,124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 84.
    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.Google Scholar
  75. 85.
    See also C. Sunstein, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  76. 87.
    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.Google Scholar
  77. 91.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 94.
    L. Heinzerling, ‘Political Science’, University of Chicago Law Review, 62 (1995), 449–73; Heinzerling, ‘Clean air and the constitution’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 96.
    C. Sunstein, ‘Democratizing America through law’, Suffolk University Law Review, 24 (1991), 949–80; Sunstein, Risk and Reason.Google Scholar
  80. 97.
    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).Google Scholar
  81. 99.
    L.H. Tribe, ‘Policy science: Analysis or ideology?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2 (1972), 66-.Google Scholar
  82. 100.
    For example, J. Adams, Risk (London: University College London Press, 1995);Google Scholar
  83. 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).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ragnar E. Löfstedt 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ragnar E. Löfstedt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations