Suchergebnisse

Confronted with complex and wicked issues, public authorities turn to science and expertise to provide answers that will help reduce the level of uncertainty that characterizes these issues. Yet, the paper argues that more often than not, it is the application of a risk framework to a given issue that fosters uncertainty, not the other way round. Hence, the more authorities and experts attempt to apply a risk approach to an issue, the more they encourage the production of uncertainty. Taking mobile telephony as a case in point, the paper then goes on to show that to reduce uncertainties, authorities in some countries have recently experimented with new forms of knowledge in the process of expertise; paradoxically, this may raise in a first moment the general level of uncertainty, but it may also provide in the longer term more robust knowledge. The larger aim of the paper is to expand conceptions of uncertainty commonly used in risk governance.

Confronted with complex and wicked issues, public authorities turn to science and expertise to provide answers that will help reduce the level of uncertainty that characterizes these issues. Yet, the paper argues that more often than not, it is the application of a risk framework to a given issue that fosters uncertainty, not the other way round. Hence, the more authorities and experts attempt to apply a risk approach to an issue, the more they encourage the production of uncertainty. Taking mobile telephony as a case in point, the paper then goes on to show that to reduce uncertainties, authorities in some countries have recently experimented with new forms of knowledge in the process of expertise; paradoxically, this may raise in a first moment the general level of uncertainty, but it may also provide in the longer term more robust knowledge. The larger aim of the paper is to expand conceptions of uncertainty commonly used in risk governance.

The rise of standardization processes highlights two different paths toward a regulatory state. Within the EU, the New Approach serves as a model for co‐regulation, and European standards have become instruments of supranational governance. In France, standardization is much more part of a renegotiation of the state's role and influence in a changing society. In both cases, standardization was undertaken with other motives; yet it evolved to answer the strains and constraints exerted upon regulatory processes in the two polities. As such, standards are a case for unintentionality in policy instruments.

The study of risk in the French social sciences over the past 10 years draws upon a tradition of policy studies. Following an earlier period during which research focused on major catastrophes and technological risks, studies moved on to a broader range of collective risks. Emphasis was placed on the social construction of risks by social movements, NGOs, experts and counter-experts, whistleblowers, private firms and public administrations. Among these studies, two separate approaches can be observed.A first strand of research focused on how existing risks became public problems, i.e., why and how among the many risks which surround us, some became major issues while others did not. This led to specific interest for processes of problem-building and agenda-setting. In these processes, the role of organizations was closely scrutinized.A second strand of research focused on how existing public problems became framed as risks, i.e., the way in which an issue already on the agenda came to acquire new attributes which, by stressing a number of uncertainties and establishing links with other controversial issues, turned it into a risk.From the sum results of these two strands, a general framework of analysis for the study of risks emerges, which stresses the dynamic nature of their construction processes, the political nature of the controversies which accompany risks on the public agenda, the dimensions of lack of familiarity and control in the risks that emerge, and the crucial importance of debates over calculating the risks.

The rise of standardization processes highlights two different paths toward a regulatory state. Within the EU, the New Approach serves as a model for co-regulation, and European standards have become instruments of supranational governance. In France, standardization is much more part of a renegotiation of the state's role and influence in a changing society. In both cases, standardization was undertaken with other motives; yet it evolved to answer the strains and constraints exerted upon regulatory processes in the two polities. As such, standards are a case for unintentionality in policy instruments.

The rise of standardization processes highlights two different paths toward a regulatory state. Within the EU, the New Approach serves as a model for co-regulation, and European standards have become instruments of supranational governance. In France, standardization is much more part of a renegotiation of the state's role and influence in a changing society. In both cases, standardization was undertaken with other motives; yet it evolved to answer the strains and constraints exerted upon regulatory processes in the two polities. As such, standards are a case for unintentionality in policy instruments.

The study of risk in the French social sciences over the past 10 years draws upon a tradition of policy studies. Following an earlier period during which research focused on major catastrophes and technological risks, studies moved on to a broader range of collective risks. Emphasis was placed on the social construction of risks by social movements, NGOs, experts and counter-experts, whistleblowers, private firms and public administrations. Among these studies, two separate approaches can be observed.A first strand of research focused on how existing risks became public problems, i.e., why and how among the many risks which surround us, some became major issues while others did not. This led to specific interest for processes of problem-building and agenda-setting. In these processes, the role of organizations was closely scrutinized.A second strand of research focused on how existing public problems became framed as risks, i.e., the way in which an issue already on the agenda came to acquire new attributes which, by stressing a number of uncertainties and establishing links with other controversial issues, turned it into a risk.From the sum results of these two strands, a general framework of analysis for the study of risks emerges, which stresses the dynamic nature of their construction processes, the political nature of the controversies which accompany risks on the public agenda, the dimensions of lack of familiarity and control in the risks that emerge, and the crucial importance of debates over calculating the risks.