Government Risk Regulation

Abstract

This article argues that risk assessment, supposedly the scientific component of risk regulation (as opposed to risk management, the policy component), cannot be very scientific because too little is known. Without firm scientific knowledge, risk assessment must rely on conventions promulgated by bureaucrats or on the professional judgments of scientific experts; such conventions and judgments reflect not only scientific knowledge but also policy judgments and cultural values. The inadequacy of scientific knowledge, coupled with the lack of public trust in government and in experts, suggests that risk regulators should be concerned not only with creating institutional arrangements likely to foster trust but also with creating mechanisms for providing concerned individuals with credible reassurance. The article concludes by discussing divergences between public perceptions and expert perceptions of risks, and the weights that a democratic society should give to each in assessing and managing risks.