IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v14y2020i4p637-652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experts, regulatory capture, and the “governor's dilemma”: The politics of hurricane risk science and insurance

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Weinkle

Abstract

Using historical context and brief case studies of hurricane risk science, this article illustrates the intimate relationship between the insurance industry and scientific researchers largely assumed to be external to the industry. This paper argues that the extent to which the insurance industry directs, funds, and validates the production and use of science for estimating risk is itself a full blown political enterprise that functions to prioritize industry interests in views of hurricane risk and potentially narrow the broader discussion of disaster losses to the single solution of insurance pricing. The situation presents what has recently been termed the “governor's dilemma.” Regulators face losing control over industry's influence on understandings of society's hurricane risk; at the same time, greater control over the research effort may stymie advancement in knowledge needed for effective risk management.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Weinkle, 2020. "Experts, regulatory capture, and the “governor's dilemma”: The politics of hurricane risk science and insurance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 637-652, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:14:y:2020:i:4:p:637-652
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12255
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12255?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Gluckman & James Wilsdon, 2016. "From paradox to principles: where next for scientific advice to governments?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Anthony Michaels & Ann Close & David Malmquist & Anthony Knap, 1997. "Climate science and insurance risk," Nature, Nature, vol. 389(6648), pages 225-227, September.
    3. Shobita Parthasarathy, 2010. "Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(5), pages 355-367, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Georg Rilinger, 2023. "Who captures whom? Regulatory misperceptions and the timing of cognitive capture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-60, January.

    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. Peter Horton & Garrett W. Brown, 2018. "Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5, December.
    2. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    3. Frans W. A. Brom, 2019. "Institutionalizing applied humanities: enabling a stronger role for the humanities in interdisciplinary research for public policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Steve Connelly & Dave Vanderhoven & Robert Rutherfoord & Liz Richardson & Peter Matthews, 2021. "Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Foley, Conor & Droog, Elsa & Healy, Orla & McHugh, Sheena & Buckley, Claire & Browne, John Patrick, 2017. "Understanding perspectives on major system change: A comparative case study of public engagement and the implementation of urgent and emergency care system reconfiguration," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 800-808.
    6. Shobita Parthasarathy, 2011. "Whose knowledge? What values? The comparative politics of patenting life forms in the United States and Europe," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 267-288, September.
    7. Salo, Matti & Hiedanpää, Juha & Orihuela, José Carlos & Llerena Pinto, Carlos Alberto & Leigh Vetter, John, 2023. "Governmentality in evidence? Evolving rationalities of forest governance in Peru," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    8. Lisa Dilling & Rachel Hauser, 2013. "Governing geoengineering research: why, when and how?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 553-565, December.
    9. Walter H. Corson, 2002. "Recognizing hidden environmental and social costs and reducing ecological and societal damage through tax, price, and subsidy reform," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 67-82, March.
    10. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Ravi Kashyap, 2022. "Options as Silver Bullets: Valuation of Term Loans, Inventory Management, Emissions Trading and Insurance Risk Mitigation using Option Theory," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(2), pages 1175-1215, August.

    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:wly:reggov:v:14:y:2020:i:4:p:637-652. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.