Risk and Governance Part II: Policy in a Complex and Plurally Perceived World

1998 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Thompson ◽  
Steve Rayner ◽  
Steven Ney
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Probabilistic Risk Assessment ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Definition Of

OUR CONCLUSION, IN PART I,* WAS THAT THE ABANDONMENT OF THE expert/lay dichotomy as the basis for understanding risk perception, whilst essential, is not going to be easy. We argued that:1) Objectivism (the idea that we can clearly distinguish between what the risks really are and what people variously and erroneously believe them to be) has to give way to constructivism (the idea that risk is inherently subjective: something that we project onto whatever it is that is ‘out there’).2) To impose a single definition of what the problem is, which is what so much of policy analysis and science-for-public-policy does, is to exclude all those who happen not to share that particular way of framing things. Since people are unlikely to support a policy that is aimed at solving what they do not see to be the problem, approaches that insist on singularity (and on single metrics — cost: benefit analysis, for instance, probabilistic risk assessment, qualityadjusted life years and so on) will inevitably be low on consent, surprise-prone, unref lexive, brittle and undemocratic.

scholarly journals An economic model of risk assessment for water projects

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 2054-2068
Author(s):  
Antonio Nesticò ◽  
Gianluigi De Mare ◽  
Gabriella Maselli
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Investment Risk ◽  
Limit Set ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Water Projects ◽  
Project Risk ◽  
Environmental Decision Making ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract The projects that concern water resources are characterized by the multiple risk rates – even extra–financial – that significantly affect their concrete feasibility. Although the risk assessment is decisive for expressing economic convenience judgements on these project initiatives, the decision-maker does not have precise references to determine whether the residual investment risk is acceptable. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to overcome the limit set by characterizing a model for the acceptability of project risk, also considering the plurality of environmental effects that the water projects generate on the community. The idea is to integrate the logic ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’ (ALARP) into the procedural schemes of Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA). In accordance with this principle, widely applied in high-risk sectors such as those of industrial engineering, a risk is ALARP when the costs to further reduce it are disproportionate to the obtainable benefits. The application of the model to an irrigation reconversion intervention in a Municipality in the Province of Salerno (Italy) shows that the ALARP logic defines a general way of thinking and can contribute to the definition of effective forecasting protocols. In this sense, the proposed methodology becomes a useful support for environmental decision-making. (The paper is to be attributed in equal parts to the three authors.)

Establishment of Risk Assessment Model for Ship Collision using Applied Bayesian Network -Collision Accidents between Fishing vessels and Cargo Vessels -

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Shinoda ◽  
Koji Uru
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Fishing Vessels ◽  
Formal Safety Assessment ◽  
Trial Cost

In this study, a risk assessment model for ship collisions is proposed according to the guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) approved by IMO in 2002. The analysis is applied to ship collisions between fishing and cargo vessels owing to their high frequency and enormous damage. Bayesian network theory for risk analysis has been applied to reveal a causal relationship on human factors. A trial evaluation of Risk Control Options (RCOs) for collisions is attempted through the calculation of the dominance index. Finally, a trial cost benefit analysis for RCOs is considered through Gross Cost of Averting Fatality (GCAF) in FSA.

Resource allocation

2021 ◽  
pp. 119-130
Author(s):  
Anna Smajdor ◽  
Jonathan Herring ◽  
Robert Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Medical Resources ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Ethical Basis ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

This chapter explores the issues around the rationing of medical resources. It considers the different ways in which restrictions are imposed on what treatments are available and the ethical basis on which these assessments are based. This includes the controversial 'quality adjusted life years' method which is used to determine a cost/benefit analysis of different treatments. The chapter also examines how rationing is consistent with broader themes of justice.

scholarly journals Individual patient risk assessment and cost–benefit analysis of patiromer in AMBER – Authors' reply

The Lancet ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 396 (10247) ◽  
pp. 311-312
Author(s):  
Rajiv Agarwal ◽  
Patrick Rossignol ◽  
William B White ◽  
Bryan Williams
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Patient Risk

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Social Welfare Functions

2019 ◽  
pp. 397-422
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Social Welfare Function ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Important Policy ◽  
The Social

This chapter describes and compares the two most important policy-analysis methodologies in economics: cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and the social-welfare-function (SWF) framework. Both approaches are consequentialist and welfarist; both are typically combined with a preference-based view of well-being. Despite these similarities, the two methodologies differ in significant ways. CBA translates well-being impacts into monetary equivalents, and ranks outcomes according to the sum total of monetary equivalents. By contrast, the SWF framework relies upon an interpersonally comparable measure of well-being. Each possible outcome is mapped onto a list (vector) of these well-being numbers, one for each person in the population; the ranking of outcomes, then, is driven by some rule (the SWF) for ranking these well-being vectors. The utilitarian SWF and the prioritarian family of SWFs (each corresponding to well-developed positions in moral philosophy) are especially plausible. The case for using CBA rather than one of these SWFs is weak—or so the chapter argues.

Show Me the Money: Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Work Environment

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Levenstein ◽  
Mary Lee Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Public Policy Making

During the last several decades, Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) has become a widely used technique in public policy-making. This review examines CBA from perspectives of both advocates and critics; it looks at its theory and practice, its purported advantages and shortcomings in application. It also proposes several ways in which the process can be made more accountable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document