IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i6p1204-1222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle

Author

Listed:
  • H. Orri Stefánsson

Abstract

The precautionary principle (PP) is an influential principle of risk management. It has been widely introduced into environmental legislation, and it plays an important role in most international environmental agreements. Yet, there is little consensus on precisely how to understand and formulate the principle. In this article I prove some impossibility results for two plausible formulations of the PP as a decision‐rule. These results illustrate the difficulty in making the PP consistent with the acceptance of any tradeoffs between catastrophic risks and more ordinary goods. How one interprets these results will, however, depend on one's views and commitments. For instance, those who are convinced that the conditions in the impossibility results are requirements of rationality may see these results as undermining the rationality of the PP. But others may simply take these results to identify a set of purported rationality conditions that defenders of the PP should not accept, or to illustrate types of situations in which the principle should not be applied.

Suggested Citation

  • H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1204-1222, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:6:p:1204-1222
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13265
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13265?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. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    2. Per Sandin & Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson & Christina Rudén & André Juthe, 2002. "Five charges against the precautionary principle," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 287-299, October.
    3. Oliver Walker & Simon Dietz, 2011. "A representation result for choice under conscious unawareness," GRI Working Papers 59, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    4. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 2013. "Bounded awareness, heuristics and the Precautionary Principle," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 17-31.
    5. Charles Vlek, 2011. "Straightening Out the Grounds for Precaution: A Commentary and Some Suggestions About Terje Aven's “On Different Types of Uncertainties”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1534-1537, October.
    6. Edi Karni & Marie-Louise Vier?, 2013. ""Reverse Bayesianism": A Choice-Based Theory of Growing Awareness," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2790-2810, December.
    7. Martin Peterson, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 595-601, June.
    8. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    9. Martin Peterson, 2017. "Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2035-2038, November.
    10. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2039-2040, November.
    11. D. Warner North, 2011. "Uncertainties, Precaution, and Science: Focus on the State of Knowledge and How It May Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1526-1529, October.
    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. Ting Fu & Kamilya Altayeva, 2023. "Analysis of environmental legislative restrictions of Kazakhstan in the context of international trade relations," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1 suppl.), pages 101-117.

    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. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    2. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Terje Aven, 2011. "Response," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1538-1542, October.
    5. Ani Guerdjikova & John Quiggin, 2018. "Intertemporal Portfolio Choice with Incorrect Beliefs and Aversion to Surprise," Post-Print hal-02086151, HAL.
    6. Vierø, Marie-Louise, 2021. "An intertemporal model of growing awareness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    7. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    8. Karni, Edi & Vierø, Marie-Louise, 2017. "Awareness of unawareness: A theory of decision making in the face of ignorance," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 301-328.
    9. Ani Guerdjikova & John Quiggin, 2019. "Market Selection With Differential Financial Constraints," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1693-1762, September.
    10. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    11. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    12. Hausken, Kjell, 2021. "The precautionary principle as multi-period games where players have different thresholds for acceptable uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    13. Martin Peterson, 2017. "Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2035-2038, November.
    14. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2039-2040, November.
    15. Tim Lewens, 2010. "The risks of progress: precaution and the case of human enhancement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 207-216, March.
    16. Carla Susana A. Assuad, 2020. "Understanding Rationality in Sustainable Development Decision-Making: Unfolding the Motivations for Action," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 1086-1119, September.
    17. Kjell Hausken, 2018. "Formalizing the Precautionary Principle Accounting for Strategic Interaction, Natural Factors, and Technological Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2055-2072, October.
    18. Sarah Auster & Jeremy Kettering & Asen Kochov, 2021. "Sequential Trading With Coarse Contingencies," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2021_254, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    19. Boissonnet, Niels & Ghersengorin, Alexis & Gleyze, Simon, 2020. "Revealed Deliberate Preference Changes," MPRA Paper 101756, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Faro, José Heleno & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2019. "Dynamic objective and subjective rationality," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.

    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:39:y:2019:i:6:p:1204-1222. 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.