Food safety through risk analysis: The role of private and public governance

Public and Private in Natural Resource Governance: A False Dichotomy?

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 189-204

  Renn, Ortwin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651282995     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781849775984     Document Type: Chapter

References (25)

1. Amy, D J (1983) ‘Environmental mediation: An alternative approach to policy stalemates’, Policy Sciences, vol 15, pp345-365
2. Beierle, T C and Cayford, J (2002) Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
3. Coglianese, C and Lazer, D (2003) ‘Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals’, Law and Society, vol 37, pp691-730
4. Durant, J and Joss, S (1995) Public Participation in Science, Science Museum, London EC (European Commission)
5. Gregory, R, McDaniels, T and Fields, D (2001) ‘Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: A new perspective for environmental negotiation’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol 20, no 3, pp4l5-432.
6. Hajer, M and Wagenaar, H (2003) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press
7. Kasperson, R E, Golding, D and Kasperson, J X (1999) ‘Risk, trust and democratic theory’ in Cvetkovich, G and Lofstedt, R (eds) Social Trust and the Management of Risk, Earthscan, London, pp22-41.
8. Klinke, A and Renn, O (2002) ‘A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based management’, Risk Analysis, vol 22, no 6, pp1071-1094.
9. Kunreuther, H and Heal, G (2003) ‘Interdependent security’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol 26, no 2/3, pp231-249.
10. Laudan, L (1996) ‘The pseudo-science of science? The demise of the demarcation problem’ in Laudan, L (ed) Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method and Evidence, Westview Press, Boulder, pp166-192.
11. Petts, J (1997) ‘The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility, and process’, Public Understanding of Science, vol 6, no 4, pp359-381
12. Rhodes, RAW (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Open University Press
13. Stern, P C and Fineberg, V (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
14. Stirling, A (2003) ‘Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences’ in Berkhout, F, Leach, M and Scoones, I (eds) Negotiating Change, Edward Elgar, London, pp33-76.
15. Stirling, A (2004) ‘Opening up or closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology’ in Leach, M, Scoones, I and Wynne, B (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge ofEngagement, Zed, London, pp218-231.
16. Trustnet (1999) A New Perspective on Risk Governance, EU, Paris, www.trustnet governance.com (accessed 8 November 2005).
17. UK Treasury Department (2004) Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance, Draft for Consultation, HM Treasury Press, London, www.hm-treasury.gov.uk (accessed 8 November 2005).
18. van Asselt, M B A (2000) Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk, Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston.
19. van Asselt, M B A (2005) ‘The complex significance of uncertainty in a risk area’, International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, vol 5, no 2/3/4, pp125-158.
20. Viklund, M (2002) Risk Policy: Trust, Risk Perception and Attitudes, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
21. Webler, T (1995) ‘Right discourse in citizen participation. An evaluative yardstick’ in Renn, O, Webler, T and Wiedemann, P (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp35-86.
22. Webler, T (1999) ‘The craft and theory of public participation: A dialectical process’, Risk Research, vol 2, no 1, pp55-71.
23. Webler, T, Levine, D, Rakel, H and Renn, O (1991) ‘The Group Delphi: A novel attempt at reducing uncertainty’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol 39, pp253-263.
24. Wisdon, J and Willis, R (2004) See-Through Science. Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, DEMOS, London.
25. Wynne, B (2002) ‘Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out?’, Current Sociology, vol 50, no 30, pp459-477.