The Experts below are selected from a list of 166911 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Henry Rothstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Not ‘dead letters’, just ‘blind eyes’: the Europeanisation of drinking water Risk Regulation in Estonia and Lithuania
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2015Co-Authors: Kati Orru, Henry RothsteinAbstract:This paper draws on a detailed empirical study of the implementation of the EU’s Drinking Water Directive in Estonia and Lithuania in order to understand the factors shaping the Europeanisation of Risk Regulation regimes in Eastern accession states. Adopting a ‘whole-regime’ methodological approach, the paper explores the key drivers and constraints shaping the transposition as well as the practical implementation of the law. The study shows how ‘conditionality’ pressures to adopt the EU acquis in order to access European economic and financial support networks have reinforced, rather than overcome, historically entrenched regulatory cultures. Going beyond well-known typologies of Europeanisation, the paper identifies a distinctive ‘blind-eye’ style of Europeanisation in which conditionality pressures have favoured selective compliance with ill-suited EU rules at the expense of tackling significant drinking water Risk problems. The paper shows how such symbolic policy practices have been shaped through a combination of the countries’ shared Soviet legacies of elite-centred and legalistic governance cultures, the active coping strategies of street-level inspectors, as well as wider sociopolitical contexts that have limited the impact of civil society actors such as scientists, NGOs, and the general public in strengthening Risk Regulation in the Baltic states. The paper also shows, however, that the different post-Soviet ideological orientations and administrative reform programmes of Eastern European accession states can override their common Soviet legacies and lead to significant national variation in Risk Regulation processes and outcomes. Keywords: Risk Regulation, Europeanisation, Eastern Europe, drinking water
-
Neglected Risk Regulation: The institutional attenuation phenomenon
Health Risk & Society, 2003Co-Authors: Henry RothsteinAbstract:This paper considers the institutional factors that shape regulatory officials' perceptions of Risks to human health and safety and their attitudes towards associated Regulation. In particular, the paper considers the extent to which the perceptions of Risk and Regulation of officials responsible for monitoring and enforcement are aligned with regulatory requirements, and, if not, what factors explain those perceptions. Moreover, the paper considers the impact of officials' perceptions and attitudes on policy processes and outcomes. Empirically, the paper considers three UK Risk Regulation regimes: occupational exposure to radon, chemical migration from plastics food packaging and BSE related controls on specified bovine offal. Analysis of those cases suggests that conventional accounts that contrast 'rational' bureaucratic expertise against 'irrational' lay perspectives can miss the institutional 'irrationalities' that shape officials' perceptions of Risk and associated behaviour. In particular, the pape...
-
Neglected Risk Regulation: the institutional attenuation phenomenon
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics, 2002Co-Authors: Henry RothsteinAbstract:This paper considers the institutional factors that shape regulatory officials' perceptions of Risks to human health and safety and their attitudes towards associated Regulation. In particular, the paper considers the extent to which the perceptions of Risk and Regulation of officials responsible for monitoring and enforcement are aligned with regulatory requirements, and, if not, what factors explain those perceptions. Moreover, the paper considers the impact of officials' perceptions and attitudes on policy processes and outcomes. Empirically, the paper considers three UK Risk Regulation regimes: occupational exposure to radon, chemical migration from plastics food packaging, and BSE-related controls on specified bovine offal. Analysis of those cases suggests that conventional accounts that contrast 'rational' bureaucratic expertise against 'irrational' lay perspectives can miss the institutional 'irrationalities' that shape officials' perceptions of Risk and associated behaviour. In particular, the paper suggests that complex Risk Regulation regimes are vulnerable to a phenomenon of 'institutional attenuation'. That term refers to institutional processes that serve to diminish inspectors' perceptions or awareness of a Risk, and/or diminish inspectors' perceptions of the policy importance of associated Regulations. Furthermore, the paper shows how such institutional attenuation can contribute to ineffective monitoring and enforcement of some Risk Regulation regimes.
-
the government of Risk understanding Risk Regulation regimes
OUP Catalogue, 2001Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert BaldwinAbstract:List of Figures List of Tables SECTION 1: INTRODUCING Risk Regulation REGIME 1. What are Risk Regulation Regimes? Why do they Matter? 2. The Comparative Anatomy of Risk Regulation Regimes 3. Nine Risk Regulation Regimes Compared SECTION 2: EXPANDING VARIATION IN Risk Regulation REGIMES 4. How far does Context Shape Content in Risk Regulation Regimes? 5. Exploring the 'Market Failure' Hypothesis 6. Opinion-Response Government and Risk Regulation 7. Interests, Lobbies, and Experts 8. Regime Content and Context Revisited: An Overall Picture SECTION 3: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF Risk Regulation REGIMES 9. Regime Development Under Pressure: Staged Retreats and Lateral Mutations 10. The Regime Perspective in Risk Regulation: Implications for Policy and Institutional Design Appendixes References Index
-
The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes
OUP Catalogue, 2001Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert BaldwinAbstract:Why does Regulation vary so dramatically from one area to another? Why are some Risks regulated aggressively and others responded to only modestly? Is there any logic to the techniques we use in Risk Regulation? These key questions are explored in The Government of Risk. This book looks at a number of Risk Regulations regimes, considers the respects in which they differ, and examines how these differences can be explained. Analysing Regulation in terms of 'regimes' allows us to see the rich, multi-dimensional nature of Risk Regulation. It exposes the thinness of society-wide analyses of Risk controls and it offers a perspective that single case studies cannot reach. Regimes analysis breaks down the components of Risk Regulation systems and shows how these interact. It also shows how different parts of the same regime may be shaped by different factors and have to be understood in quite different ways. The Government of Risk shows how such an approach is of high policy relevance as well as of considerable theoretical importance. Available in OSO: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0199243638/toc.html
Nicholas Frank Pidgeon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
trust in Risk Regulation cause or consequence of the acceptability of gm food
Risk Analysis, 2005Co-Authors: Wouter Poortinga, Nicholas Frank PidgeonAbstract:Although there is ample empirical evidence that trust in Risk Regulation is strongly related to the perception and acceptability of Risk, it is less clear what the direction of this relationship is. This article explores the nature of the relationship, using three separate data sets on perceptions of genetically modified (GM) food among the British public. The article has two discrete but closely interrelated objectives. First, it compares two models of trust. More specifically, it investigates whether trust is the cause (causal chain account) or the consequence (associationist view) of the acceptability of GM food. Second, this study explores whether the affect heuristic can be applied to a wider number of Risk-relevant concepts than just perceived Risk and benefit. The results suggest that, rather than a determinant, trust is an expression or indicator of the acceptability of GM food. In addition, and as predicted, "affect" accounts for a large portion of the variance between perceived Risk, perceived benefit, trust in Risk Regulation, and acceptability. Overall, the results support the associationist view that specific Risk judgments are driven by more general evaluative judgments The implications of these results for Risk communication and policy are discussed.
-
Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2003Co-Authors: Wouter Poortinga, Nicholas Frank PidgeonAbstract:This article investigates possible differential levels of trust in government Regulation across five different Risk contexts and the relationship between a number of concepts that might be thought of as comprising distinctive “dimensions” of trust. It appeared that how people perceive government and its policies toward Risk Regulation was surprisingly similar for each of the five Risk cases. A principal-component analysis showed that the various trust items could best be described by two dimensions: a general trust dimension, which was concerned with a wide range of trust-relevant aspects, such as competence, care, fairness, and openness, and a scepticism component that reflects a sceptical view regarding how Risk policies are brought about and enacted. Again, the results were surprisingly similar across the five Risk cases, as the same solution was found in each of the different samples. It was also examined whether value similarity has an additional value in predicting trust in Risk Regulation, compared to the more conventional aspects of trust. Based on the two independent trust factors that were found in this study, a typology of trust is proposed that ranges from full trust to a deep type of distrust. It is argued that for a functioning society it could well be more suitable to have critical but involved citizens in many situations.
Alberto Alemanno - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Governing Disasters – The Challenges of Emergency Risk Regulation
2011Co-Authors: Alberto AlemannoAbstract:Emergency crises have always tested our ability to organise and swiftly execute a coordinated response. Both natural and unnatural disasters pose new questions to which previous experience provides only limited answers. These challenges are arguably greater than ever, in a more globalised world confronted by a truly transnational hazard. This is the first volume that addresses the complexities of emergency Risk Regulations, i.e. regulatory action undertaken under the immediacy of a disaster in order to mitigate its impact. It does so from a multidisciplinary perspective, drawing upon research from economics, law, sociology and other fields, as well as moral philosophy and leading expertise in natural disasters. Whilst our knowledge base is wide-ranging, there is a common focus on the practical lessons of the ash cloud crisis as well as of the Fukushima disaster for emergency Risk Regulation more generally. Among many other insights Governing Disasters explains why in both instances it was that industry and regulators were largely unprepared for phenomena about which we were not scientifically ignorant. It concludes that the toolbox of Risk Regulation should not be expected to provide ready-made solutions but applied flexibly, creatively and with some humility.
-
Risk vs. Hazard and the Two Souls of EU Risk Regulation: A Reply to Ragnar Löfstedt
European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2011Co-Authors: Alberto AlemannoAbstract:According to a familiar script, the EU has, in recent years, been subscribing to a progressive ideal of Regulation based on evidence. Given the historical affection of the EU integration process to technocratic modes of governance, this choice is not surprising. Yet, as it emerges from the powerful j’accuse delivered by Lofstedt in his opening essay, the EU’s turn towards evidence-based Regulation has been accompanied by a parallel trend towards a more flexible, precautionary-oriented approach vis-a-vis the government of Risk. Although not necessarily anti-scientific, this other ‘soul’ of EU Risk Regulation is messy, pluralistic (it accepts ‘other legitimate factors’), and pragmatic (it is sensitive to public demand). In other words, in the EU Risk decision-making the rational, technocratic soul is matched by another soul, which is less systematic, less predictable, in short, more human. In our view, to be fully apprehended, the ‘hazard vs Risk’ debate should be measured against this dual nature of EU Risk Regulation.
-
The Birth of the European Journal of Risk Regulation
European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2010Co-Authors: Alberto AlemannoAbstract:I am delighted to announce the birth of the European Journal of Risk Regulation. This new academic journal reflects the growing importance of both national and European Regulations intended to protect health, safety, security and the environment – as well as the accompanying institutional challenges for the European Union governance.This large body of law is known as Risk Regulation. It seeks to reduce the Risks of harm to individuals and society, stemming from all threats whether industrial or natural, voluntary or involuntary. Arguably, this portion of EU legislation already represents the most important and widespread part of the internal market acquis and, due to its international success, it contributes to make the EU a de facto global regulator. As such, it provides a new and valuable lens through which to analyse the European integration process.
-
The Birth of the European Journal of Risk Regulation
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Alberto AlemannoAbstract:As the European Union is increasingly emerging as de facto global regulator of all kinds of rules concerning the environment, human health, and safety, Risk Regulation is becoming a new lens through which to analyse the European integration process. Indeed, today the most important and widespread form of EU Regulation in the internal market is concerned with the government of Risk to individuals' health and safety. The European Journal of Risk Regulation (EJRR) is a new international journal that provides an innovative forum for informed and scholarly discussion on how these Risks are regulated across policy domains in Europe and beyond. The EJRR understands itself as a truly multi-disciplinary journal. While the central focus of the journal is the European law regulating inter alia Chemicals (REACH), Nanomaterials, Pharmaceuticals, Food and Feed, Cosmetics & Medical Devices, Pollution, Climate Change, Industrial Accidents and Public Health, discussion extends to other social sciences, such as economics, Regulation studies, political science, Risk analysis, safety science and sociology.
-
The Shaping of European Risk Regulation by Community Courts
2008Co-Authors: Alberto AlemannoAbstract:Although not originally foreseen in the founding Treaty, today the most important and widespread form of EU Regulation in the internal market is concerned with the government of Risk. Indeed, similarly to what occurred in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, the EU has in recent times witnessed the enactment of a vast body of legislation to protect the environment as well as individuals' health and safety. Collectively, this large body of legislation is known as 'Risk Regulation'. Contrary to conventional wisdom, this phenomenon is not the product of legislative interventions tout court but the result of a rich and informed case-law developed by EU courts in recent years. By systematising this growing case-law, this essay aims at identifying the main distinctive attributes of the emerging European Risk regulatory model.
Robert Baldwin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Risk Regulation and Transnationality: Institutional Accountability as a Driver of Innovation
Transnational Environmental Law, 2014Co-Authors: Robert Baldwin, Julia Black, Gerard O’learyAbstract:This article describes the processes that led the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a National Inspection Plan for domestic waste water treatment systems, following intervention from European Union institutions. The discussion focuses on two issues: the role of transnational institutional settings in galvanizing innovation and regulatory reform, and the practical challenges of dealing with lower Risks. It is argued that multi-level transnational regimes have considerable potential to stimulate high-level reviews of regulatory strategy. As a result, lower Risks present challenges that cannot be ignored in favour of policies that focus on the most severe Risks. Traditional Risk Regulation theories, it is contended, do not provide much assistance in selecting intervention strategies in the face of such pressures, but the example of the Irish EPA shows how regulators can address these issues.
-
the government of Risk understanding Risk Regulation regimes
OUP Catalogue, 2001Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert BaldwinAbstract:List of Figures List of Tables SECTION 1: INTRODUCING Risk Regulation REGIME 1. What are Risk Regulation Regimes? Why do they Matter? 2. The Comparative Anatomy of Risk Regulation Regimes 3. Nine Risk Regulation Regimes Compared SECTION 2: EXPANDING VARIATION IN Risk Regulation REGIMES 4. How far does Context Shape Content in Risk Regulation Regimes? 5. Exploring the 'Market Failure' Hypothesis 6. Opinion-Response Government and Risk Regulation 7. Interests, Lobbies, and Experts 8. Regime Content and Context Revisited: An Overall Picture SECTION 3: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF Risk Regulation REGIMES 9. Regime Development Under Pressure: Staged Retreats and Lateral Mutations 10. The Regime Perspective in Risk Regulation: Implications for Policy and Institutional Design Appendixes References Index
-
The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes
OUP Catalogue, 2001Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert BaldwinAbstract:Why does Regulation vary so dramatically from one area to another? Why are some Risks regulated aggressively and others responded to only modestly? Is there any logic to the techniques we use in Risk Regulation? These key questions are explored in The Government of Risk. This book looks at a number of Risk Regulations regimes, considers the respects in which they differ, and examines how these differences can be explained. Analysing Regulation in terms of 'regimes' allows us to see the rich, multi-dimensional nature of Risk Regulation. It exposes the thinness of society-wide analyses of Risk controls and it offers a perspective that single case studies cannot reach. Regimes analysis breaks down the components of Risk Regulation systems and shows how these interact. It also shows how different parts of the same regime may be shaped by different factors and have to be understood in quite different ways. The Government of Risk shows how such an approach is of high policy relevance as well as of considerable theoretical importance. Available in OSO: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0199243638/toc.html
-
Where Risk Society Meets the Regulatory State: Exploring Variations in Risk Regulation Regimes
Risk Management, 1999Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert Baldwin, Judith A. Rees, Michael SpackmanAbstract:This paper seeks to establish a framework for comparing and understanding variation in state Risk Regulation regimes that moves forward from overgeneralised discussions of the nature of ‘Risk society’ or the ‘regulatory state’ and micro-level debates over policy-settings for particular Risks. Conceiving of Risk Regulation regimes as bundles of ‘director’, ‘detector’, and ‘effector’ activities by state and other institutions, the paper compares current UK Risk Regulation regimes for domestic radon, dangerous dogs and pesticide contamination of food and water. The paper describes the different forms of, and varying stresses on, director, detector and effector activities across the three cases. It concludes by reflecting on the value of an RRR approach in analysing the state's approach to Risk management. In particular, it takes a conventional ‘market-failure’ approach as a ‘null hypothesis’ and discusses how far that approach explains variation in RRR profiles among the three cases, and how much remains to be explained by other approaches.
Christopher Hood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the government of Risk understanding Risk Regulation regimes
OUP Catalogue, 2001Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert BaldwinAbstract:List of Figures List of Tables SECTION 1: INTRODUCING Risk Regulation REGIME 1. What are Risk Regulation Regimes? Why do they Matter? 2. The Comparative Anatomy of Risk Regulation Regimes 3. Nine Risk Regulation Regimes Compared SECTION 2: EXPANDING VARIATION IN Risk Regulation REGIMES 4. How far does Context Shape Content in Risk Regulation Regimes? 5. Exploring the 'Market Failure' Hypothesis 6. Opinion-Response Government and Risk Regulation 7. Interests, Lobbies, and Experts 8. Regime Content and Context Revisited: An Overall Picture SECTION 3: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF Risk Regulation REGIMES 9. Regime Development Under Pressure: Staged Retreats and Lateral Mutations 10. The Regime Perspective in Risk Regulation: Implications for Policy and Institutional Design Appendixes References Index
-
The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes
OUP Catalogue, 2001Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert BaldwinAbstract:Why does Regulation vary so dramatically from one area to another? Why are some Risks regulated aggressively and others responded to only modestly? Is there any logic to the techniques we use in Risk Regulation? These key questions are explored in The Government of Risk. This book looks at a number of Risk Regulations regimes, considers the respects in which they differ, and examines how these differences can be explained. Analysing Regulation in terms of 'regimes' allows us to see the rich, multi-dimensional nature of Risk Regulation. It exposes the thinness of society-wide analyses of Risk controls and it offers a perspective that single case studies cannot reach. Regimes analysis breaks down the components of Risk Regulation systems and shows how these interact. It also shows how different parts of the same regime may be shaped by different factors and have to be understood in quite different ways. The Government of Risk shows how such an approach is of high policy relevance as well as of considerable theoretical importance. Available in OSO: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0199243638/toc.html
-
Risk Regulation Under Pressure: Problem Solving or Blame Shifting?
Administration & Society, 2001Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry RothsteinAbstract:This paper explores a style-phase model of staged organizational responses to external pressure for change against two competing hypotheses, focusing on demands for greater openness and transparency. A study of six Risk Regulation regimes in the UK revealed that only half were exposed to substantial pressures of this type. Responses of organizations in the ‘high-pressure’ regimes were varied, but the overall pattern was consistent with a mixture of an autopoietic and staged-response hypothesis stressing blame-prevention, and the paper accordingly presents a hybrid ‘Catherine-wheel’ model of the observed pattern. The paper concludes by discussing the implications for policy outcomes.
-
Where Risk Society Meets the Regulatory State: Exploring Variations in Risk Regulation Regimes
Risk Management, 1999Co-Authors: Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert Baldwin, Judith A. Rees, Michael SpackmanAbstract:This paper seeks to establish a framework for comparing and understanding variation in state Risk Regulation regimes that moves forward from overgeneralised discussions of the nature of ‘Risk society’ or the ‘regulatory state’ and micro-level debates over policy-settings for particular Risks. Conceiving of Risk Regulation regimes as bundles of ‘director’, ‘detector’, and ‘effector’ activities by state and other institutions, the paper compares current UK Risk Regulation regimes for domestic radon, dangerous dogs and pesticide contamination of food and water. The paper describes the different forms of, and varying stresses on, director, detector and effector activities across the three cases. It concludes by reflecting on the value of an RRR approach in analysing the state's approach to Risk management. In particular, it takes a conventional ‘market-failure’ approach as a ‘null hypothesis’ and discusses how far that approach explains variation in RRR profiles among the three cases, and how much remains to be explained by other approaches.
