IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v54y2021i1d10.1007_s11077-020-09409-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk regulation and precaution in Europe and the United States: the case of bioinvasion

Author

Listed:
  • Ronit Justo-Hanani

    (Tel Aviv University)

  • Tamar Dayan

    (Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

The precautionary nature of risk regulation in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) is an ongoing debate. Theoretical contentions over ‘who is more precautionary’ confirm that the degree of relative precaution may lead to different levels of protection, but also suggest that precaution needs to be evaluated against different parts of the regulatory process. This paper addresses a new case of transatlantic split which has occurred with the adoption of the EU regulation on alien invasive species. This regulation aims to drive important changes at the trade–environment nexus and reflects Europe’s integrated policy approach to environmental, health, and safety risks. We have carried out a comparative analysis by examining parts of the regulatory process. We argue that differences in legal and policy frameworks, risk assessment, and risk management structures have left the EU and the US wide apart as to their risk governance ambitions. The EU exhibits more precautionary approach with regard to these parts, as compared to the US. Our finding suggests that policy divergence, as reflected in this case, is true for both stringency and regulatory process, expanding literature discussions on precaution in these systems. Yet, with the EU’s regulation being relatively new, there are still implementation issues up for debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronit Justo-Hanani & Tamar Dayan, 2021. "Risk regulation and precaution in Europe and the United States: the case of bioinvasion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 3-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09409-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-020-09409-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-020-09409-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-020-09409-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simberloff, Daniel, 2006. "Risk Assessments, Blacklists, and White Lists for Introduced Species: Are Predictions Good Enough to Be Useful?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Dahlstrom, Alisha & Hewitt, Chad L. & Campbell, Marnie L., 2011. "A review of international, regional and national biosecurity risk assessment frameworks," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 208-217, March.
    3. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    4. Scott Farrow, 2004. "Using Risk Assessment, Benefit‐Cost Analysis, and Real Options to Implement a Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 727-735, June.
    5. Simberloff, Daniel, 2006. "Risk Assessments, Blacklists, and White Lists for Introduced Species: Are Predictions Good Enough to Be Useful?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(01), pages 1-10, April.
    6. Vogel, David, 2003. "The Hare and the Tortoise Revisited: The New Politics of Consumer and Environmental Regulation in Europe," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 557-580, October.
    7. Ronit Justo-Hanani & Tamar Dayan, 2016. "Explaining Transatlantic Policy Divergence: The Role of Domestic Politics and Policy Styles in Nanotechnology Risk Regulation," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 79-98, February.
    8. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.
    9. Sarah Clement & Susan Moore & Michael Lockwood & Michael Mitchell, 2015. "Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(4), pages 463-489, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sims, Charles & Finnoff, David, 2013. "When is a “wait and see” approach to invasive species justified?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 235-255.
    2. Liu, Shuang & Hurley, Michael & Lowell, Kim E. & Siddique, Abu-Baker M. & Diggle, Art & Cook, David C., 2011. "An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1924-1930, September.
    3. Bernard Lapeyre & Emile Quinet, 2017. "A Simple GDP-based Model for Public Investments at Risk," Post-Print hal-01666574, HAL.
    4. Steinar Andresen & G. Kristin Rosendal & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2018. "Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 513-528, August.
    5. Runhui Lin & Yuan Gui & Zaiyang Xie & Lu Liu, 2019. "Green Governance and International Business Strategies of Emerging Economies’ Multinational Enterprises: A Multiple-Case Study of Chinese Firms in Pollution-Intensive Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-32, February.
    6. Gijs Jan Brandsma & Jan Pollex & Paul Tobin, 2023. "Overlooked Yet Ongoing: Policy Termination in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1360-1376, September.
    7. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    8. A B M Enamol Hassan & Nazma Afroz, 2020. "Implications of Risk Governance in Genetically Modified Food: A Comparative Discussion on European and United States Contexts," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(8), pages 1-33, August.
    9. Mindaugas Butkus & Giovanni Schiuma & Ilona Bartuseviciene & Ona Grazina Rakauskiene & Lina Volodzkiene & Laura Dargenyte-Kacileviciene, 2023. "The impact of organizational resilience on the quality of public services: Application of structural equation modeling," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 18(2), pages 461-489, June.
    10. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "A California Effect for International Environmental Externalities?," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-189, April.
    11. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    12. Zilberman, David & Graff, Gregory & Hochman, Gal & Kaplan, Scott, 2015. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    13. Sabine E. Grimm & Xavier Pouwels & Bram L. T. Ramaekers & Ben Wijnen & Saskia Knies & Janneke Grutters & Manuela A. Joore, 2020. "Development and Validation of the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) Tool for Assessing Uncertainties in Health Economic Decision Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 205-216, February.
    14. John Braithwaite & Cary Coglianese & David Levi‐Faur, 2007. "Can regulation and governance make a difference?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, March.
    15. Diego Badell & Jordi Rosell, 2021. "Are EU Institutions Still Green Actors? An Empirical Study of Green Public Procurement," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1555-1572, November.
    16. Fritz W. Scharpf, 2009. "The Asymmetry of European Integration - or why the EU cannot be a Social Market Economy," KFG Working Papers p0006, Free University Berlin.
    17. Sophie Nappert, 2013. "The Reality of Precaution -- Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe, Jonathan B Wiener, Michael D Rogers, James K Hammitt, Peter H Sand, eds, RFF Press, 2011," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(10), pages 1317-1320, November.
    18. Miriam Hartlapp & Christian Rauh, 2013. "The Commission’s internal conditions for social re-regulation: Market efficiency and wider social goals in setting the rules for financial services in Europe," European Journal of Government and Economics, Europa Grande, vol. 2(1), pages 25-40, June.
    19. Jaatun, Martin Gilje & Albrechtsen, Eirik & Line, Maria B. & Tøndel, Inger Anne & Longva, Odd Helge, 2009. "A framework for incident response management in the petroleum industry," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 26-37.
    20. Cortés-Capano, Gonzalo & Hanley, Nick & Sheremet, Oleg & Hausmann, Anna & Toivonen, Tuuli & Garibotto-Carton, Gustavo & Soutullo, Alvaro & Di Minin, Enrico, 2021. "Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09409-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.