IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v36y2009i3p229-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politics of risk in contemporary Portugal: Tensions in the consolidation of science-policy relations

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Eduarda Gonçalves
  • Ana Delicado

Abstract

In recent years, the political authorities in Portugal have increasingly drawn on scientific expertise in matters of public policy. Yet, this trend appears to be less a consequence of European-driven influences than an expedient to respond to difficulties in legitimising political decisions in particular around environmental or health risk. Based on two case studies (the co-incineration of hazardous industrial waste and depleted uranium in the Balkans) this article seeks to analyse the specific ways in which policy-makers are resorting to scientists and experts, as well as the tensions arising from this within the scientific community. We propose that such tensions are to be understood as a distinctive feature of a society where the growth and consolidation of the scientific system are comparatively recent developments. The positivist model of science adopted by politicians and scientists alike denotes their resilience in adhering to the current European trend to open up science-based decision-making and the struggle for identity building in the scientific community. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Eduarda Gonçalves & Ana Delicado, 2009. "The politics of risk in contemporary Portugal: Tensions in the consolidation of science-policy relations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 229-239, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:3:p:229-239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234209X427130
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:3:p:229-239. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.