Policy Shock Recalibrating Risk and Regulation after Oil Spills, Nuclear Accidents and Financial Crises
Book contents
- Policy Shock
- Policy Shock
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
- 2 Economic Analysis, Risk Regulation, and the Dynamics of Policy Regret
- 3 Revised Risk Assessments and the Insurance Industry
- 4 Understanding Public Risk Perception and Responses to Changes in Perceived Risk
- 5 Focusing Events, Risk, and Regulation
- 6 The Story of Risk
- Part II Case Studies on Offshore Oil Spills
- Part III Case Studies on Nuclear Accidents
- Part IV Case Studies of Financial Crises
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
2 - Economic Analysis, Risk Regulation, and the Dynamics of Policy Regret
from Part I - The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2017
Book contents
- Policy Shock
- Policy Shock
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
- 2 Economic Analysis, Risk Regulation, and the Dynamics of Policy Regret
- 3 Revised Risk Assessments and the Insurance Industry
- 4 Understanding Public Risk Perception and Responses to Changes in Perceived Risk
- 5 Focusing Events, Risk, and Regulation
- 6 The Story of Risk
- Part II Case Studies on Offshore Oil Spills
- Part III Case Studies on Nuclear Accidents
- Part IV Case Studies of Financial Crises
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Policy ShockRecalibrating Risk and Regulation after Oil Spills, Nuclear Accidents and Financial Crises, pp. 41 - 42Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Allais, M. 1953. “Le Comportement de L’homme Rationnel Devant Le Risquye, Critique Des Postulats et Axioms de L’ecole Americaine.” Econometrica 21: 503–46.Google Scholar
Anscombe, F., and Aumann, R.. 1963. “A Definition of Subjective Probability.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 34: 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. J., and Lind, R. C.. 1970. “Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions.” American Economic Review 60: 364–78.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M.. 2003. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, G. A., and Withey, S. B.. 1981. “Perspectives on Risk Perceptions.” Risk Analysis 1: 143–63.Google Scholar
Copeland, C. W. 2011. Cost-Benefit and Other Analysis Requirements in the Rulemaking Process. #R41974. www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41974.pdf.Google Scholar
Dalkey, N. C. 1969. The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion. #RM-5888-PR. www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM5888.html.Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S. 2009. “Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 315–72.Google Scholar
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. 2011. The Finanical Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Finanical And Economic Crisis in the United States. Washington, DC. http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf.Google Scholar
Helmer-Hirschberg, O. 1967. Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. #P-3558. www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3558.html.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. 1964. “Efficient Allocation of Capital in an Uncertain World.” American Economic Review 54: 77–85.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47 (2): 263–91.Google Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., and Green, J. R.. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
National Commission, on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. 2011. “Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling.” www.oilspillcommission.gov/.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html.Google Scholar
Rowe, G., and Wright, G.. 2001. “Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?” Risk Analysis 21 (2): 341–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandman, P. M., Weinstein, N. D., and Klotz, M. L.. 1987. “Public Response to Risk from Geological Radon.” Journal of Communication 37 (3): 93–108.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N., and Bartlett, S.. 1995. “Intuitive Toxicology II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada.” Risk Analysis15 15: 661–75.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. 2006. A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. Washington, D.C. www.c-span.org/pdf/katrinareport.pdf.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O.. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, N., and Klaes, M.. 2012. An Introduction to Behavioral Economics. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wright, G., and Bolger, F.. 1992. “Introduction.” In Expertise and Decision Support, edited by Wright, G. and Bolger, F.. New York: Plenum, 1–8.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by