From the Writings of Aaron Wildavsky 1

AbstractThis study is an empirical approach to answering the question: are there any universal factors that account for the origin, diffusion and persistence of corruption in human societies? The paper enquires whether the perception of corruption in politics and economics can be tackled as a form of cultural adaptation, driven by exogenous and endogenous forces. These are respectively: freedom of access and management of economic resources, and the pressures towards human grouping. Following the analytical insights of cultural theory, developed by Mary Douglas and later Aaron Wildavsky, variation is introduced through the ways in which corruption is perceived through the different behavioral and cultural biases that prevail in societies. This research introduces a cross-country comparative analysis of 57 countries attempting to test quantitatively whether institutional pressure and emphasis towards social grouping are correlated with corruption perception at country levels.

Download Full-text

Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. By Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Pp. ix + 221. $14.95.) - Acceptable Risk. By Baruch Fischhoff et al. (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Pp. xv + 185. $19.95.)

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1956029 ◽

1983 ◽

Vol 77 (1) ◽

pp. 203-204

Author(s):

Gene Weinstein

Keyword(s):

University Of California ◽

Acceptable Risk ◽

Cambridge University ◽

Mary Douglas ◽

Aaron Wildavsky ◽

Selection Of

Download Full-text

Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries. By Naomi Caiden and Aaron Wildavsky. (New York: Wiley, 1974. Pp. 371. $14.95.)

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1958471 ◽

1975 ◽

Vol 69 (3) ◽

pp. 1061-1063

Author(s):

William W. Siffin

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Poor Countries ◽

Aaron Wildavsky

Download Full-text

Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron B. Wildavsky,

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.10 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Kai Wegrich

Keyword(s):

Economic Development ◽

Policy Making ◽

Policy Research ◽

Employment Opportunities ◽

Public Policy Research ◽

Implementation Studies ◽

Central Argument ◽

Aaron Wildavsky ◽

Emergent Networks

This chapter comments onImplementation, a book by Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky. It traces its roots to the Economic Development Agency’s Oakland project, designed to promote economic development in cities by increasing employment opportunities for minorities. It considers Pressman and Wildavsky’s account of why the Oakland program failed, as well as their central argument with regards to the role of politics and policy-making in implementation. It discusses the decline of implementation studies as the dominating subfield of public policy research and highlights some key concerns raised by Pressman and Wildavsky that continue to be influential. The chapter concludes by looking at debates about the merits of non-hierarchical coordination, informal interaction, and emergent networks.

Download Full-text

Lessons from the EU's REACH Program

European Journal of Risk Regulation ◽

10.1017/s1867299x00001070 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 181-182

Author(s):

Adam Abelkop ◽

John D. Graham ◽

Lois R. Wise

Keyword(s):

The United States ◽

Recent Book ◽

Alternative View ◽

The European Union ◽

Eu Member States ◽

Duke University ◽

Aaron Wildavsky ◽

The University ◽

The U.S ◽

The Eu

In the casual political rhetoric about environmental regulation, it is often claimed that the U.S. government regulates on the basis of risk while the European Union (or EU member states) regulates on the basis of hazard. The implication is that the U.S. government relies on a more rigorous, scientific process of assessment than does the EU, which allegedly helps explain why the EU is more pro-regulation than is the United States.An alternative view, advanced originally by the late Professor Aaron Wildavsky of the University of California-Berkeley and amplified in a recent book by Professor Jonathan Wiener of Duke University, and colleagues, is that societies engage in a process of “risk selection.” What worries some societies does not worry others.

Download Full-text