Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
The long subtitle of this paper, appearing in the first issue of the EJRR – a publication which fills a serious gap in the scholarly literature of the old continent – identifies what I take to be the key terms of the current debate on risk regulation. It is impossible to understand the evolution of risk regulation over the last three decades in Europe and the United States without having a good grasp of how these concepts, and their corresponding practices, interact. How, for example, does a particular institutional design affect the way scientific uncertainties are resolved? What decision rules are appropriate in situations of high scientific uncertainty? Which constitutional principles facilitate policy learning and accountability in the regulation of risk?
1 Weinberg, A. M., “Science and Trans-science”, Minerva, Vol. 10 (April 1972), pp. 209–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Cornfield, J., “Carcinogenic Risk Assessment”, Science, 194 (October 1977), pp. 693–699, at p. 698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Luhmann, N., Legitimation durch Verfahren, (Neuwied: Luchterhand 1975), pp. 27–37 Google Scholar.
4 Parsons, T., Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall 1966), p. 27 Google Scholar.
5 Leebron, D. W., “Lying down with Procustes: An Analysis of Harmonization Claims”, in Bhagwati, J. N. and Hudec, R. E. (eds), Fair Trade and Harmonization, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press 1996), pp. 41–118.Google Scholar
6 Ibid, at p. 46.
7 Majone, G., “The Credibility Crisis of Community Regulation”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 38, No.2, 2000, pp. 273–303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Majone, G., “Managing Europeanization: The European Agencies”, in Peterson, J. and Shackleton, M. (eds), The Institutions of the European Union, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006), pp. 190–209 Google Scholar.
9 Majone, G., Dilemmas of European Integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005), pp. 124–138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (New York: Oxford University Press 1973), pp. 24–25 Google Scholar.
11 Knight, F.H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Chicago, ILL.: University of Chicago Press 1971 [1921])Google Scholar.
12 Lindley, D., Making Decisions (New York and London: Wiley-Interscience 1971), pp. 18–26 Google Scholar.
13 See, for example, Morrow, James D., Game Theory for Political Scientists (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press 1994), pp. 170–180 Google Scholar.
14 Mashaw, J.L./Merrill, R.A./Shane, P.M., Administrative Law, 4th ed. (St. Paul, MINN.: West Group 1998), p. 132 Google Scholar.
15 Ibid, pp. 129–134.
16 Sunstein, C.R., After the Rights Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1990), p. 198 Google Scholar.
17 Graham, J.D./Green, L.C./Roberts, M.J., In Search of Safety (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press 1988), p. 97 Google Scholar.
18 Ibid, p. 99.
19 Mendeloff, J.M., The Dilemma of Toxic Substance Regulation (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press 1988), pp. 100–102 Google Scholar.
20 Ibid, pp. 116–117.
21 Ibid, p. 117.
22 Mashaw et al., p. 815.
23 Graham et al., p. 100, (emphasis added).
24 Mashaw et al., p. 813.
25 Graham et al., pp. 103–105.
26 Mashaw et al., pp. 823–825.
27 Viscusi, W.K./Vernon, J. M./Harrington, J. E. Jr., Economics of Regulation and Antitrust (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press 1996), pp. 27–28 Google Scholar.
28 Majone, 2005, pp. 124–142.
29 Greenwood, T., Knowledge and Discretion in Government Regulation (New York: Praeger 1984), p. 118 Google Scholar.
30 de Búrca, G./Scott, J., “The Impact of the WTO on EU Decisionmaking”. Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 6/00.