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
- 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
- 17 Institutional Mechanisms for Investigating the Regulatory Implications of a Major Crisis
- 18 Recalibrating Risk
- Index
- References
18 - Recalibrating Risk
Crises, Learning, and Regulatory Change
from Part V - Conclusions
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
- 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
- 17 Institutional Mechanisms for Investigating the Regulatory Implications of a Major Crisis
- 18 Recalibrating Risk
- 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. 485 - 539Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D., 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Birkland, Thomas A. 2006. Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change after Catastrophic Events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, T. H. and Kay, A. C.. 2014. Solution Aversion: On the Relation between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107(5): 809–24.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel and Sin, Gisela. 2007. Policy Tragedy and the Emergence of Regulation: The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Studies in American Political Development 21: 149–80.Google Scholar
Denzau, Arthur T. and Munger, Michael C.. 1986. Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented. American Political Science Review 80: 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, John D. and Wiener, Jonathan Baert, eds. 1995. Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, George. 2015. When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk. New York Times, September 22, D3.Google Scholar
Kahn, Matthew E. 2007. Environmental Disasters as Risk Regulation Catalysts? The Role of Bhopal, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Love Canal, and Three Mile Island in Shaping US Environmental Law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 35: 17–43.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul and Tversky, Amos. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John, 2003. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York: Longman Classics in Political Science.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur and Sunstein, Cass R., 1999. Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation. Stanford Law Review 51: 683–768.Google Scholar
McCray, Lawrence E., Oye, Kenneth A., and Petersen, Arthur C.. 2010. Planned Adaptation in Risk Regulation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77: 951–59.Google Scholar
Percival, Robert V. 1998. Environmental Legislation and the Problem of Collective Action. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 9: 9–28.Google Scholar
Preston, A. Catherine. 2014. “Reaction and Revision: Regulatory Responses to Post-1870 Chemical Disasters. Senior Thesis, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University.Google Scholar
Repetto, Robert, ed. 2006. Punctuated Equilibrium and the Dynamics of US Environmental Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rust, Daniel, 2015. In the Shadow of Tragedy: The Evolution of Safety Coregulation on America’s Uninspected Towing Vessels, Enterprise and Society 15: 885–920.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul. 2007. “If I Look at the Mass I Will Never Act”: Psychic Numbing and Genocide. Judgment and Decision Making 2 (2): 79–95.Google Scholar
Small, Deborah A., Loewenstein, George and Slovic, Paul. 2007. Sympathy and Callousness: The Impact of Deliberative Thought on Donations to Identifiable and Statistical Victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102: 143–53.Google Scholar
Stahl, Aimee E. and Feigenson, Lisa. 2015. Observing the Unexpected Enhances Infants’ Learning and Exploration. Science, 348 (April 3): 91–94.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah A., 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science Quarterly 104: 281–300.Google Scholar
Wiener, Jonathan B. 2016. The Tragedy of the Uncommons: On the Politics of Apocalypse. Global Policy. 7(S1): 67–80.Google Scholar
Wiener, Jonathan B., and Richman, Barak D.. 2010. Mechanism Choice. In Public Choice and Public Law, edited by Farber, Daniel and O’Connell, Anne Joseph. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar: 363–98.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2014. World Development Report 2014: Risk and Opportunity – Managing Risk for Development (Washington, DC).Google Scholar
Wuthnow, Robert. 2010. Be Very Afraid: The Cultural Response to Terror, Pandemics, Environmental Devastation, Nuclear Annihilation, and Other Threats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by