IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v5y1985i1p17-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing Risk: A Joint U.S.‐German Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Lester B. Lave
  • Joshua Menkes

Abstract

Ideas from a USA‐FRG conference on risk management are presented. In general, the difficulties confronted by risk management authorities in the two countries are similar, from discovering important risks at an early stage to setting acceptable goals. Government regulation is overburdened and somewhat inefficient in both countries, leading to greater search for alternatives. The many differences in approach between the two countries can inform both. German risk management is done largely through negotiations among the affected parties; when this does not resolve a dispute, a specialized administrative court takes charge. In both countries nonregulatory methods of managing risk should be enhanced and given a larger role. A matrix of risk management method versus criteria proved stimulating in comparing and ranking approaches. The conceptual differences between managing discrete events (auto crashes, boiler explosions, etc.) and chronic exposures have not been appreciated. Although uncertainty and probability are involved in both, there are qualitative differences in both analysis and management. Public perceptions of risk and the role these should play have been characterized by “objectivist” and “subjectivist” positions. In the former view, risks are subject to analysis, are calculable, and the public must be educated to accept the conclusions of experts. In the latter view what people perceive is what is most important, both psychologically and politically, and the risk experts must understand public fears and desires. These are important opportunities for cross cultural studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Lester B. Lave & Joshua Menkes, 1985. "Managing Risk: A Joint U.S.‐German Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 17-23, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:5:y:1985:i:1:p:17-23
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1985.tb00148.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1985.tb00148.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1985.tb00148.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. Stanley Kaplan, 1981. "On The Method of Discrete Probability Distributions in Risk and Reliability Calculations–Application to Seismic Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 189-196, September.
    2. Stan Kaplan & Harold F. Perla & Dennis C. Bley, 1983. "A Methodology for Seismic Risk Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 169-180, September.
    3. Rakesh Kumar Sarin, 1983. "A Social Decision Analysis of the Earthquake Safety Problem: The Case of Existing Los Angeles Buildings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 35-50, March.
    4. William B. Fairley, 1981. "Assessment for Catastrophic Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 197-204, September.
    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. Robin C. Van den Honert, 2016. "Improving Decision Making about Natural Disaster Mitigation Funding in Australia—A Framework," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Mark R. Leach & Yacov Y. Haimes, 1987. "Multiobjective Risk‐Impact Analysis Method," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 225-241, June.
    3. Robert E. Kurth & David C. Cox, 1985. "Discrete Probability Distributions for Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 235-240, September.
    4. Raymond F. Boykin & Mardyros Kazarians & Raymond A. Freeman, 1986. "Comparative Fire Risk Study of PCB Transformers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 477-488, December.
    5. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    6. James J. Buckley, 1986. "Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 35-41, March.
    7. Kwag, Shinyoung & Park, Junhee & Choi, In-Kil, 2020. "Development of efficient complete-sampling-based seismic PSA method for nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    8. Chiara D’Alpaos & Paolo Bragolusi, 2020. "The Market Price Premium for Buildings Seismic Retrofitting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    9. Edouard Kujawski & Gregory A. Miller, 2007. "Quantitative risk‐based analysis for military counterterrorism systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 273-289, December.
    10. Edouard Kujawski, 2002. "Selection of technical risk responses for efficient contingencies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 194-212.
    11. Carolyn D. Heising & Virgilio Lopes de Oliveira, 1995. "A Unified Approach for Calculating Core Melt Frequency Caused by Internal and External Initiating Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 41-47, February.
    12. Stan Kaplan & James C. Lin, 1987. "An Improved Condensation Procedure in Discrete Probability Distribution Calculations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 15-19, March.
    13. Katina, Polinpapilinho F. & Ariel Pinto, C. & Bradley, Joseph M. & Hester, Patrick T., 2014. "Interdependency-induced risk with applications to healthcare," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 12-26.
    14. Gyun Seob Song & Man Cheol Kim, 2021. "Mathematical Formulation and Analytic Solutions for Uncertainty Analysis in Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Stephen D. Unwin, 1986. "A Fuzzy Set Theoretic Foundation for Vagueness in Uncertainty Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 27-34, March.
    16. M. L. Murray & D. B. Chambers & R. A. Knapp & S. Kaplan, 1987. "Estimation of Long‐Term Risk from Canadian Uranium Mill Tailings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 287-298, September.
    17. Hileman, Jacob D. & Angst, Mario & Scott, Tyler A. & Sundström, Emma, 2021. "Recycled text and risk communication in natural gas pipeline environmental impact assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    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:5:y:1985:i:1:p:17-23. 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.