IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v7y1987i1p3-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Rayner
  • Robin Cantor

Abstract

This paper consists of an argument and a pilot study. First is a general, perhaps philosophical, argument against the National Academy's viewpoint(1) that dealing with risk is a two‐stage process consisting of (a) assessment of facts, and (b) evaluation of facts in sociopolitical context. We argue that societal risk intrinsically revolves around social relations as much as around evaluations of probability. Second, we outline one particular approach to analyzing societal risk management styles. We call this the fairness hypothesis. Rather than focusing on probabilities and magnitudes of undesired events, this approach emphasizes societal preferences for principles of achieving consent to a technology, distributing liabilities, and investing trust in institutions. Conflict rather than probability is the chief focus of this approach to societal risk management. This view is illustrated by a recent empirical pilot study that explored the fairness hypothesis in the context of new nuclear technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Rayner & Robin Cantor, 1987. "How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 3-9, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:7:y:1987:i:1:p:3-9
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00963.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00963.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00963.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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Timothy McDaniels, 1988. "Perceived Fairness in Risk Management: The AIDS Testing Example," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 7-8, March.
    2. Frank N. Laird, 1989. "The Decline of Deference: The Political Context of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 543-550, December.
    3. Susan G. Hadden, 1991. "Public Perception of Hazardous Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 47-57, March.
    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. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    6. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    7. Timothy C. Earle & George Cvetkovich, 1997. "Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 55-65, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    10. Robert P. Anex & Will Focht, 2002. "Public Participation in Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment: A Shared Need," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 861-877, October.
    11. Fisher, Ann & King, Robert & Hewitt, William & Epp, Donald J. & Finley, Kelly & Brown, J. Lynne & Maretzki, Audrey N., 1992. "Understanding Food Safety Policy Issues - Report on Model Materials," AE & RS Research Reports 257728, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    12. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    13. John M. Gleason, 1989. "Perceived Fairness in Risk Management: Bayesian Implications for AIDS Testing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 15-16, March.
    14. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    15. Howard Kunreuther & Kevin Fitzgerald & Thomas D. Aarts, 1993. "Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 301-318, June.
    16. Ilyas Baker & Thawatchai Boonchote, 1998. "Sensitizing technical experts to public concerns about industrial hazards using theory, guided imaging and focused group discussion," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 39-45, March.
    17. Harry Otway & Brian Wynne, 1989. "Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 141-145, June.
    18. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    19. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    20. Daniel J. Fiorino, 1989. "Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 293-299, September.
    21. Branden B. Johnson, 2011. "Acculturation, Ethnicity, and Air Pollution Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 984-999, June.
    22. Ortwin Renn & Birgit Blättel‐Mink & Hans Kastenholz, 1997. "Discursive methods in environmental decision making," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 218-231, September.
    23. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic & Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Srinivas Emani, 1993. "Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 611-623, December.
    24. Douglas Easterling, 1993. "Informational Approaches to Regulation, by Wesley Magat and W. Kip Viscusi. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992, 371 pp. Price: $32.50 cloth," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 795-801.
    25. James Flynn & William Burns & C.K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 417-429, 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:7:y:1987:i:1:p:3-9. 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: 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.