Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-569ts Total loading time: 0.359 Render date: 2022-10-03T03:11:09.166Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

8 - The Walkerton water tragedy and the Jerusalem banquet hall collapse: regulatory failure and policy change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2010

Robert Schwartz
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto
Allan McConnell
Affiliation:
Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney
Arjen Boin
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Allan McConnell
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Paul 't Hart
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Get access

Summary

Introduction: a puzzle emerging from tragedy

Risk regulation is a key feature of modern, complex, industrial and postindustrial societies. Reasons for the growth of such regimes are contested (see, e.g. Douglas and Wildavsky 1983; Beck 1999; Jordana and Levi-Faur 2004), but their ‘formal’ roles in systems of governance are clear. As Hood et al. (2001: 3) suggest, risk regulation is ‘governmental interference with market or social processes to control potential adverse consequences to health’. Arguably therefore, the greatest blow to a regulatory policy regime is being implicated as a causal factor in crisis or disaster. With policy legitimacy damaged and operational regulatory matters proving insufficient for the task, it would be logical to assume that liberal democratic processes of inquiry and accountability in the aftermath of crisis/disaster would lead to mature lesson-drawing processes and culminate in regulatory reforms. Indeed, with such high salience and prominence given to the protection of public health, it may be difficult to imagine a regulatory regime which does not engage in policy reforms aimed at restoring operational efficacy and reputational legitimacy of regulators and policy overseers alike.

Herein lies the ‘puzzle’ addressed by this chapter. We tackle two cases of regulatory failure identified as significant causal factors in tragedies, yet vastly different policy outcomes were produced as a result of investigation and lesson drawing.

Type
Chapter
Information
Governing after Crisis
The Politics of Investigation, Accountability and Learning
, pp. 208 - 231
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arian, A. 1995. Security threatened: surveying Israeli public opinion on peace and war. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannister, J. 1997. How to manage risk. 2nd edn. London: LLPGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. 1999. World risk society. Cambridge, UK: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Birkland, T. A. 1997. After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
Birkland, T. A. 2006. Lessons of disaster: policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
Birkland, T. A., and Nath, R. 2000. Business and political dimensions in disaster management. Journal of Public Policy 20(3):275–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, A., and 't Hart, P. 2003. Public leadership in times of crisis: mission impossible?Public Administration Review 63(5):544–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, A., 't Hart, P., Stern, E. and Sundelius, B. 2005. The politics of crisis management: public leadership under pressure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, B. L. 2001. Don't drink the water: the Walkerton tragedy. Victoria, BC: Trafford PublishingGoogle Scholar
Commission of Inquiry into Safety of Buildings and Public Places 2004. Justice V. Zeiler, Jerusalem chair
Commission on New Building Methods 2001. Recommendations for institutionalizing procedures for checking and approving new building methods. Jerusalem: Ministry of Interior
Concerned Walkerton Citizens. 2001. Walkerton inquiry, part 1A and 1B: Final argument on behalf of the Concerned Walkerton Citizens. http://www.cela.ca/publications/cardfile.shtml?x=1067
Diskin, A., and Hazan, R. Y. 2002. The 2001 prime ministerial election in Israel. Electoral Studies 21(4):659–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. 1983. Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkley, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Drennan,, L. T., and McConnell, A. 2007. Risk and crisis management in the public sector. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Dror, Y. 1988. Public administration in Israel. In Rowat, D. C. (ed.) Public administration in developed democracies: a comparative study. New York: Marcel DekkerGoogle Scholar
Fone, M., and Young, P. C. 2005. Managing risk in public organisations. Leicester, UK: Perpetuity PressGoogle Scholar
George, A. L., and Bennett, A. 2004. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Glor, E., and Greene, I. 2002. The government of Canada's approach to ethics: the evolution of ethical government. Public Integrity 5(1):39–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, D. A. 2003. The politics of public management. Toronto: Institute of Public Administration of CanadaGoogle Scholar
Hood, C., Rothstein, H. and Baldwin, R. 2001. The government of risk: understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordana, J., and Levi-Faur, D. (eds.) 2004. The politics of regulation: institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward ElgarCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, R. 2002. ‘Common-sense’ neo-liberalism: progressive conservative urbanism in Toronto, Canada. Antipode 34(3):578–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. 2003. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd edn. New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Kirschenbaum, A. 2004. Chaos organization and disaster management. New York: Marcel DekkerGoogle Scholar
Knesset (Israeli Parliament). 2001a. Protocol of the meeting of the committee for the interior and environment, 5 June
Knesset (Israeli Parliament). 2001b. Protocol of the meeting of the committee for the interior and environment, 7 July
Lebel, U. 2006. The creation of the Israeli ‘political bereavement model’ – security crises and their influence on the political behaviour of loss: a psycho-political approach to the study of politics. Israeli Affairs 12(2): 439–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, W., and Powell, D. 1997. Mad cows and mother's milk: the perils of poor risk communication. 2nd edn. Montreal: McGill-Queens University PressGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M., and Hood, C. 2002. Pavlovian policy responses to media feeding frenzies? Dangerous dogs regulation in comparative perspective. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 10(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, P. 2005. Regulation and compliance motivations: examining different approaches. Public Administration Review 65(1):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, J. I. 2004. Walkerton: Requiem for the new public management in Ontario?International Journal of Environment and Pollution 21(4):309–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, D. (chair) 2002a. Part One – Report of the Walkerton inquiry: the events of May 2000 and related issues. 2002. Ontario: Ontario Ministry for the Attorney General, http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/Google Scholar
O'Connor, D. (chair) 2002b. Part Two – Report of the Walkerton inquiry: a strategy for safe drinking water. 2002. Ontario: Ontario Ministry for the Attorney General, http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part2/Google Scholar
Perkel, C. N. 2002. Well of lies: The Walkerton water tragedy. Toronto: McLelland & StewartGoogle Scholar
Peters, G. 1998. Comparative politics: theory and methods. New York: New York University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, S., and Levasseur, K. 2004. Snakes and ladders of accountability: contradictions between contracting and collaborating for Canada's voluntary sector. Canadian Public Administration 47(4):451–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R., and Davies, P. L. 1994. Inheritance in public policy: change without choice in Britain. New Haven, CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A., and Jenkins-Smith, H. C. 1993. Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview PressGoogle Scholar
Shiva, V. 2002. Water wars: privatization, pollution, and profit. Cambridge, MA: South End PressGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P. 2000. The perception of risk. London: EarthscanGoogle Scholar
Snider, L. 2004. Resisting neo-liberalism: the poisoned water disaster in Walkerton, Ontario. Social & Legal Studies 13(2):265–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. 2002. Policy paradox: the art of political decision making. 2nd ed. New York: NortonGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, S. 2003. Biggest scandal in Canadian history: HRDC audit starts probity war. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14:187–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weale, A. (ed.) 2002. Risk, democratic citizenship and public policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Weiss, M. 2002. Bereavement, commemoration, and collective identity in contemporary Israeli society. Anthropological Quarterly 70(2):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, C. E. 2000. Policy regimes and policy change. Journal of Public Policy 20(3):247–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×