Rethinking Risk Management in the Federal Government

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Volumn 545, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 135-143

  Cantor, Robin ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030558061     PISSN: 00027162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002716296545001014     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Paul Portney, “Overall Assessment and Future Directions,” in Public Policies for Environmental Protection, ed. P. R. Portney (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1990), pp. 282-284.
2. Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc., Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Management Process (Washington, DC: Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, 1994), pp. 25-59.
3. Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy on S.343 Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995,” 10 July 1995, p. 1.
4. Linda-Jo Schierow, “The Role of Risk Analysis and Risk Management in Environmental Protection,” Congressional Research Service Issue Brief, IB94036, updated 28 Apr. 1995, pp. 3-5.
5. Previous administrations also emphasized these principles for risk-related policy-making. See Institute for Regulatory Policy, Toward Common Measures: Recommendations for a Presidential Executive Order on Environmental Risk Assessment and Risk Management Policy (Washington, DC: Federal Focus, 1991), pp. 28-48.
6. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Science, Risk, and Public Policy,” Mar. 1995, pp. 11, 13.
7. National Academy of Public Administration, Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for the Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, Apr. 1995), pp. 48-49.
8. National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983).
9. Institute for Regulatory Policy, Toward Common Measures.
10. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decision Making (New York: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, June 1993).
11. National Research Council, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994).
12. Business Roundtable, Toward Smarter Regulation (Washington, DC: Business Roundtable, Jan. 1995).
13. Harvard Group on Risk Management Reform, Reform of Risk Regulation: Achieving More Protection at Less Cost (Boston, MA: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Mar. 1995).
14. Jonathan Lash, “Integrating Science, Values, and Democracy Through Comparative Risk Assessment,” in Worst Things First: The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, ed. Adam M. Finkel and Dominic Golding (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1994), pp. 74-76.
15. For an extensive summary, see Stephen Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
16. Tammy O. Tengs et al., “Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness,” Risk Analysis, 15(3):371 (June 1995).
17. Sheila Jasanoff, Risk Management and Political Culture: A Comparative Study of Science in the Policy Context (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1986), pp. 26-27.
18. National Research Council, Science and Judgment, pp. 85-105.
19. Sheila Jasanoff, “American Exceptionalism and the Political Acknowledgment of Risk,” Daedalus 119(4):75-77 (Fall 1990).
20. National Research Council, Science and Judgment, p. 260.
21. F. Henry Habicht II, “EPA's Vision for Setting National Environmental Priorities,” in Worst Things First, ed. Finkel and Golding, p. 42.
22. Environmental Protection Agency, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1987); idem, Reducing Risks: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, SAB-EC-90-021 (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
23. National Academy of Public Administration, Setting Priorities, pp. 152-158.
24. Karen E. Jenni, Miley W. Merkhofer, and Carol Williams, “The Rise and Fall of a Risk-Based Priority System: Lessons from DOE's Environmental Restoration Priority System,” Risk Analysis, 15(3):409 (June 1995).
25. Robert W. Hahn and Carol A. May, “The Behavior of the Allowance Market: Theory and Evidence,” Electricity Journal, 7(2):33-34 (Mar. 1994).