IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v7y2013i2p215-235.html

Risk and the limits of governance: Exploring varied patterns of risk‐based governance across Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Rothstein
  • Olivier Borraz
  • Michael Huber

Abstract

Risk‐based approaches to governance are widely promoted as universally applicable foundations for improving the quality, efficiency, and rationality of governance across policy domains. Premised on the idea that governance cannot eliminate all adverse outcomes, these approaches provide a method for establishing priorities and allocating scarce resources, and, in so doing, rationalise the limits of what governance interventions can, and should, achieve. Yet cursory observation suggests that risk‐based approaches have spread unevenly across countries. Based on a comparison of the UK, France, and Germany, this article explores the ways in which, and why, such approaches have “colonised” governance regimes in the UK, but have had much more limited application in France and Germany. We argue that the institutionally patterned adoption of risk‐based governance across these three countries is related to how entrenched governance norms and accountability structures within their national polities handle both the identification and acceptance of adverse governance outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Rothstein & Olivier Borraz & Michael Huber, 2013. "Risk and the limits of governance: Exploring varied patterns of risk‐based governance across Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 215-235, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:215-235
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01153.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01153.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01153.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991.
    2. Reimund Schwarze & Gert G Wagner, 2004. "In the Aftermath of Dresden: New Directions in German Flood Insurance," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 29(2), pages 154-168, April.
    3. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019.
    4. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    5. Peter Hocke & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "Concerned public and the paralysis of decision-making: nuclear waste management policy in Germany," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(7-8), pages 921-940, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Max Boholm, 2019. "Risk and Quantification: A Linguistic Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1243-1261, June.
    2. Przemysław Brzuszczak, 2020. "Regulacja oparta na ryzyku jako refleksyjna strategia regulacyjna," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 139-151.
    3. Kristian Krieger, 2013. "The limits and variety of risk‐based governance: The case of flood management in Germany and England," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 236-257, June.
    4. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    5. Shumei Chen, 2009. "Sham or shame: Rethinking the China's milk powder scandal from a legal perspective," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 725-747, September.
    6. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2021. "Risk as an Approach to Regulatory Governance: An Evidence Synthesis and Research Agenda," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    7. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    8. Paul Almond & Mike Esbester, 2018. "Regulatory inspection and the changing legitimacy of health and safety," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 46-63, March.
    9. Hens A.C. Runhaar & P.P.J. Driessen & L. van Bree & J.P. van der Sluijs, 2010. "A meta-level analysis of major trends in environmental health risk governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 319-335, April.
    10. Paul Sanderson & David Seidl & John Roberts, 2013. "The Limits of Flexible Regulation: Managers' Perceptions of Corporate Governance Codes and 'Comply-or-Explain'," Working Papers wp439, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    11. Paul Raschky, 2007. "Estimating the effects of risk transfer mechanisms against floods in Europe and U.S.A.: A dynamic panel approach," Working Papers 2007-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    12. Alexandra Revez & Jose A Cortes-Vazquez & Stephen Flood, 2017. "Risky policies: Local contestation of mainstream flood risk management approaches in Ireland," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(11), pages 2497-2516, November.
    13. Benjamin van Rooij & Rachel E. Stern & Kathinka Fürst, 2016. "The authoritarian logic of regulatory pluralism: Understanding China's new environmental actors," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 3-13, March.
    14. Mirko Noordegraaf & Janet Newman, 2011. "Managing in Disorderly Times," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 513-538, May.
    15. Steve Clarke, 2010. "Cognitive bias and the precautionary principle: what's wrong with the core argument in Sunstein's Laws of Fear and a way to fix it," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 163-174, March.
    16. Julien Etienne, 2015. "Different ways of blowing the whistle: Explaining variations in decentralized enforcement in the UK and France," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 309-324, December.
    17. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    18. Johanna Karolina Louise Koehler, 2023. "Not all risks are equal: a risk governance framework for assessing the water SDG," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 179-189, June.
    19. Kristin Shrader‐Frechette & Roger Cooke, 2004. "Ethics and Choosing Appropriate Means to an End: Problems with Coal Mine and Nuclear Workplace Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 147-156, February.
    20. Simon Dietz & Alec Morton, 2011. "Strategic Appraisal of Environmental Risks: A Contrast Between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 129-142, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:215-235. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.