Commentary on Widmalm: A rebuttal

Abstract

This paper examines the public involvement in a particularly sensitive and highly contentious field of EU policy making: the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) sector. It argues for the establishment of a larger public debate in the EU policy field and interactive discourses that involve public voices, rather than just technocrats or scientists, in the GMO sector. In terms of deliberative democracy, an assessment of the EU's GMO regime is mixed: on the one hand, new practices have been introduced, which indicate a shift towards more participatory policy making; on the other, enhanced societal participation does not necessarily support the emergence of a larger engaged public and deliberation in the general public sphere. Thus, after the design of the ‘participatory garden’, the wider European public debate on GMOs has not ‘grown’ due to a lack of horizontal co-ordination among EU initiatives; the preference for institutionalized forms of cooperation with civil society; and the lack of evaluation methods for public involvement in GMO approvals.     

The Challenges of Consulting the Public on Science Policy: Examining the Development of European Risk Assessment Policy for Genetically Modified Animals

With the growing importance of public engagement in science policy making and declining levels of public trust in food production, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has attempted to embed “good governance” approaches to strengthen scientific independence and open up risk decision making, which include the use of public consultations. However, “opening up” of risk assessment policies reveals some tensions; namely, balancing the goals of scientific excellence and transparency, protecting science from interests, addressing value judgments, and limited opportunities to debate ethical and social issues. EFSA's development of risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals is used as a case study to analyze these tensions. This analysis suggests that in order to fulfill good governance commitments and maintain trust in risk governance, closer cooperation between EFSA and the European Commission is required to provide “space” for debating the broader risk management issues. This publically accessible space may be needed alongside rather than instead of EFSA's consultation.     

巨灾风险防范的中国范式

中国近年应对包括1998年洪水,2003年SARS,2008南方低温雨雪冰冻和汶川地震等巨灾的实践申,充分发挥了国家政治制度在应对巨灾时的特殊功能,即：“举国应对巨灾”的范式。在这一范式中,各级政府的坚强指挥起到了核心作用;军队、武警及公安等组成的应急武装力量起到了关键作用;改革开放30年形成的较强国力起到了保障作用;广大群泉及各类社会力量的积极参与起到了推动作用;各类媒体的积极舆论引导起到了凝聚力量的作用。我们称这一“举国应对巨灾”范式为“巨灾风险防范的中国范式”。在这一范式中,“五个作用”的整合展示了中国综合灾害风险防范的结构与功能体系的优化,从而体现了巨灾风险防范的高效率,这一点对一些西方国家防范巨灾风险有借鉴价值。然而,在这一范式中,防范巨灾风险的效益仍需要做全面地改进。借鉴一些国家建立的巨灾风险转移的经验,发展巨灾保险与再保险业务;提高各类基础设施的设防水平和生态系统服务能力;提高全民防范巨灾风险的意识和掌握基本逃生技能;完善巨灾风险防范的预案和信息集成网络及指挥平台等,可全面提高防范巨灾风险的资源利用效益．     

Structure and Process: Examining the Interaction between Bureaucratic Organization and Analytical Requirements

Attempts by politicians to control bureaucratic decisions include both structural (how is the agency making the decision organized?) and procedural (what rules must they follow when making the decision?). But how do these two modes of influence interact? This article examines the interaction between bureaucratic structure and one procedural control, the requirement that agencies conduct an analysis of their decisions prior to their issuance. I look at this interaction in the context of two types of analysis, cost‐benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment. I interview 16 individuals in each field and draw from their experiences of conducting and reviewing more than a thousand analyses. The conduct of analysis is affected by where analysts are placed in agencies. In particular, independence of analysts has a trade‐off. The more independent analysts are, the more likely they can challenge preferred decisions in their agency. But independent analysts are brought into decisions later and their independence may limit their long‐term impacts on agency culture. Despite this trade‐off, analysts expressed a clear preference for independence. The interaction between different controls of bureaucratic behavior is a potentially fruitful line for further research.     

Catastrophe risk,insurance and terrorism

This article empirically investigates how the terrorist activity of September 11, 2001, was addressed by the insurance industry and government in the United States. It shows that the insurance system worked reasonably well in compensating losses suffered, albeit with various tribulations. It also demonstrates that the insurance industry, along with government as the ultimate risk manager, imaginatively reconfigured markets to continue terrorism insurance coverage in many contexts. The findings challenge many of Ulrich Beck’s contentions about catastrophe risks and insurability. At the same time, they indicate the fragility of the insurance system. Insurers’ perceptions and decisions about uncertainty – with potential for windfall profits as well as catastrophic losses – create crises in insurance availability and promote new forms of inequality and exclusion. Hence, while the insurance industry is a central bulwark against uncertainty, insurers can also play a key role in fostering it.     

Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union

Proponents of biotechnology argue that citizens' opposition to innovations such as genetically modified (GM) foods is rooted in emotionalism, media and nongovernmental organizations' distortions of good science, and scientific ignorance. Critics charge that this "risk management discursive" is too reductionist, exaggerates scientific capacity, inappropriately privileges scientific values over social and political values, and inaccurately captures how citizens evaluate biotechnology. This article uses ordered logit analysis applied to the responses of Europeans to a 2005 Eurobarometer survey to test the validity of these competing perspectives in the area of GM foods. Our analysis supports the arguments of those calling for the inclusion of broader discursive social, political, and cultural elements in deliberations over GM foods. Analysis also shows that citizens are less emotional in evaluating GM foods than proponents claim and supports this "new politics of knowledge" perspective, but citizens also cling more tightly to hopes that science can resolve debates with objective analysis.     

Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effects of Political Attention and Controversy

Scholars, policy makers, and research sponsors have long sought to understand the conditions under which scientific research is used in the policy‐making process. Recent research has identified a resource that can be used to trace the use of science across time and many policy domains. U.S. federal agencies are mandated by executive order to justify all economically significant regulations by regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), in which they present evidence of the scientific underpinnings and consequences of the proposed rule. To gain new insight into when and how regulators invoke science in their policy justifications, we ask: does the political attention and controversy surrounding a regulation affect the extent to which science is utilized in RIAs? We examine scientific citation activity in all 101 economically significant RIAs from 2008 to 2012 and evaluate the effects of attention—from the public, policy elites, and the media—on the degree of science use in RIAs. Our main finding is that regulators draw more heavily on scientific research when justifying rules subject to a high degree of attention from outside actors. These findings suggest that scientific research plays an important role in the justification of regulations, especially those that are highly salient to the public and other policy actors.     

Policy Failure and Policy Learning: Examining the Conditions of Learning after Disaster

The policy learning literature indicates that governments can and do learn after a policy failure but not always. The purpose of this study is to examine the conditions under which policy failure leads to policy learning. It asks two questions. First, is policy failure associated with policy learning? Second, if policy is associated with policy learning, does the failure initiate different types of learning? Using the policy failure and learning literatures as an organizing framework, this paper analyzes three comparative cases of policy failure revealed by tornados in Greensburg, Kansas (2007); Joplin, Missouri (2011); and Moore, Oklahoma (2013). It finds that failure of the policy process in agenda setting is associated with instrumental policy learning. It also finds that there are two types of failure of decision making: failure to make a timely decision and failure to make any decision. The two types of decision‐making failure are associated with different types of policy learning. In addition, the contextual factors underpinning the link between policy failure and learning are prior experience with the policy problem and capacity to learn.     

Historical political economy and liberal democratic capitalism

This paper explores the ways in which pregnancy is increasingly portrayed as a state requiring careful and detailed risk prevention. The subject of risk reduction in not the pregnant woman; the effort here is not to reduce maternalrisk during pregnancy, but rather to reduce possible risks to the foetus due to maternal behaviour.

The deployment of risk discourse regarding foetal endangerment through maternal diet, exercise, lifestyle choices and personal habits is investigated using popular advice manuals directed at pregnant women. Through an examination of these materials, connections are made between the use of this ‘risk talk’ in prenatal advice to pregnant women and a larger practice of ‘self-regulation’ that occurs in advanced liberal rule.     

Public Managers as the Missing Variable in Policy Studies: An Empirical Investigation Using Canadian Data

The article draws on survey data from a 2007–09 study of Canadian policy analysts to assess several propositions concerning the role of public managers in policy‐making. It is argued that little is known and much taken for granted concerning the role public managers play in policy making. The discussion begins with a conceptual discussion of the nature of policy advice systems in modern governments and situates public managers among the range of actors who affect different stages of policy making activity. Propositions derived from this conceptual discussion are then subject to empirical analysis using a large‐n 2007–09 Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial dataset.