IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i5p1215-1228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Quantitative Comparison

Author

Listed:
  • James K. Hammitt
  • Jonathan B. Wiener
  • Brendon Swedlow
  • Denise Kall
  • Zheng Zhou

Abstract

Much attention has been addressed to the question of whether Europe or the United States adopts a more precautionary stance to the regulation of potential environmental, health, and safety risks. Some commentators suggest that Europe is more risk‐averse and precautionary, whereas the United States is seen as more risk‐taking and optimistic about the prospects for new technology. Others suggest that the United States is more precautionary because its regulatory process is more legalistic and adversarial, while Europe is more lax and corporatist in its regulations. The flip‐flop hypothesis claims that the United States was more precautionary than Europe in the 1970s and early 1980s, and that Europe has become more precautionary since then. We examine the levels and trends in regulation of environmental, health, and safety risks since 1970. Unlike previous research, which has studied only a small set of prominent cases selected nonrandomly, we develop a comprehensive list of almost 3,000 risks and code the relative stringency of regulation in Europe and the United States for each of 100 risks randomly selected from that list for each year from 1970 through 2004. Our results suggest that: (a) averaging over risks, there is no significant difference in relative precaution over the period, (b) weakly consistent with the flip‐flop hypothesis, there is some evidence of a modest shift toward greater relative precaution of European regulation since about 1990, although (c) there is a diversity of trends across risks, of which the most common is no change in relative precaution (including cases where Europe and the United States are equally precautionary and where Europe or the United States has been consistently more precautionary). The overall finding is of a mixed and diverse pattern of relative transatlantic precaution over the period.

Suggested Citation

  • James K. Hammitt & Jonathan B. Wiener & Brendon Swedlow & Denise Kall & Zheng Zhou, 2005. "Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Quantitative Comparison," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1215-1228, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1215-1228
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00662.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00662.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00662.x?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. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & David Vogel, 2001. "The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 399-416, June.
    2. M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Michael L. DeKay & Paul Fischbeck, 2000. "Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 49-58, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.
    5. Nancy Nighswonger Kraus & Paul Slovic, 1988. "Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions Within Homogeneous Hazard Domains," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 435-455, September.
    6. Lawrence J Axelrod & Timothy Mcdaniels & Paul Slovic, 1999. "Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 31-53, January.
    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. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    2. Henk Zandvoort, 2011. "Evaluation of Legal Liability for Technological Risks in View of Requirements for Peaceful Coexistence and Progress," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 969-983, June.
    3. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    4. Ming Yi & Xiaomeng Fang & Le Wen & Fengtao Guang & Yao Zhang, 2019. "The Heterogeneous Effects of Different Environmental Policy Instruments on Green Technology Innovation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Robert A. Kagan, 2007. "Globalization and legal change: The “Americanization” of European law?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 99-120, June.
    6. Salvador Parrado, 2020. "The culture of risk regulation: Responses to environmental disasters," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 599-615, July.
    7. Jonathan B. Wiener, 2020. "Learning to Manage the Multirisk World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2137-2143, November.

    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    3. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    4. Grant, Kevin & Edgar, David & Sukumar, Arun & Meyer, Martin, 2014. "‘Risky business’: Perceptions of e-business risk by UK small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 99-122.
    5. Bonita L. McFarlane & David O. T. Witson, 2008. "Perceptions of Ecological Risk Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Infestations in Banff and Kootenay National Parks of Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 203-212, February.
    6. Iris Alkaher & Nurit Carmi, 2019. "Is Population Growth an Environmental Problem? Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes towards Including It in Their Teaching," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, April.
    7. Nurit Carmi & Iris Alkaher, 2019. "Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Carla Rodriguez-Sanchez & Francisco J. Sarabia-Sanchez, 2020. "Does Water Context Matter in Water Conservation Decision Behaviour?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 363-378, April.
    10. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    11. Timothy L. McDaniels & Stephanie E. Chang & David Hawkins & Gerard Chew & Holly Longstaff, 2015. "Towards disaster-resilient cities: an approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 252-263, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Williamson, Tim & Hesseln, Hayley & Johnston, Mark, 2012. "Adaptive capacity deficits and adaptive capacity of economic systems in climate change vulnerability assessment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 160-166.
    14. 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.
    15. George E. Apostolakis & Douglas M. Lemon, 2005. "A Screening Methodology for the Identification and Ranking of Infrastructure Vulnerabilities Due to Terrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 361-376, April.
    16. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing Three Causal Models of Risk Perception, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Energy Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Adam Burgess, 2012. "Media, Risk, and Absence of Blame for “Acts of God”: Attenuation of the European Volcanic Ash Cloud of 2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1693-1702, October.
    18. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    19. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "A California Effect for International Environmental Externalities?," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-189, April.
    20. Myoungsoon You & Youngkee Ju, 2020. "The Outrage Effect of Personal Stake, Familiarity, Effects on Children, and Fairness on Climate Change Risk Perception Moderated by Political Orientation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-14, September.

    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:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1215-1228. 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)1539-6924 .

    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.