The process of risk assessment should allow decision makers to achieve an equitable resolution of risk problems by reference to their probability, conse quences and acceptability. Recent research has suggested that corporate inter ests are able to use such data to gain political advantage over other interested parties. In this respect there are three competing explanations as to the power of corporations to influence decisions, namely pluralism, structural Marxism and elite theory. These perspectives will be reviewed along with the role of science in policy-making. The objective here is to explore some of the problems involved in using probabilistic risk assessment within public sector decision making for major hazard sites, using Canvey Island as a basis for the discussion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., 1962. The two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56: 947-952.
2.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., 1963. Decisions and nondecisions: an analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57: 641-651.
3.
Blowers, A., 1983. Master of fate or victim of circumstance — the exercise of corporate power in environmental policy-making. Policy and Politics, 11: 393-415.
4.
Blowers, A., 1984a. Something in the Air: Corporate Power and the Environment . Harper & Row, London.
5.
Blowers, A., 1984b. The triumph of material interests — geography, pollution and the environment. Political Geography Quarterly , 3: 49-68.
6.
Brough, C.W., 1981. Dealing with risk in planning (2). In: R.F. Griffiths (Editor), Dealing with Risk . Manchester University Press, Manchester: 89-105.
7.
Collingridge, D., 1984. Technology in the Policy Process — the Control of Nuclear Power. Francis Pinter, London.
8.
Collingridge, D. and Douglas, J., 1984. Three models of policymaking: expert advice in the control of environmental lead. Social Studies of Science, 14: 343-370.
9.
Collingridge, D. and Reeve, C., 1986. Science Speaks to Power: the Role of Experts in Policymaking . Francis Pinter, London.
10.
Cotgrove, S., 1982. Catastrophe or Cornucopia. John Wiley , Chichester.
11.
Cox, A., Furlong, P. and Page, E., 1985. Power in Capitalist Society: Theory, Explanations and Cases. Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton .
12.
Cremer and Warner, 1980. An Analysis of the Canvey Report. Oyez Report, London.
13.
Crenson, M.A., 1971. The Un-politics of Pollution: Decision Making in the Cities . Johns Hop-kins University Press, Baltimore: MD.
14.
Department of the Environment, 1981. Re-opened Exploratory Inquiry into the Desirability of Revoking the Planning Permission Granted to United Refineries Ltd on 28 March 1973 for the Construction of an Oil Refinery on Canvey Island. (Inspector Sir Richard Ward.) Department of the Environment, London.
15.
Dunleavy, P., 1981. Alternative theories of liberal democratic politics: the pluralist-Marxist debate in the 1980s. In: D. Potter et al. (Editors), Society and the Social Sciences . Routledge & Kegan Paul, London .
16.
Femia, J., 1981. Gramsci's Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness and the Revolutionary Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
17.
Gramsci, A., 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence & Wishart, London.
18.
Health and Safety Executive, 1978. Canvey: an Investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area. HMSO, London .
19.
Health and Safety Executive, 1981a. The British Gas Corporation Methane Terminal, Canvey Island: Report on the Safety of Operations and Management Arrangements. HM Factory Inspectorate, East Anglia.
20.
Health and Safety Executive, 1981b. Canvey: a Second Report. HMSO, London.
21.
Irwin, A., 1985. Risk and the Control of Technology. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
22.
Irwin, A., 1986. Technical expertise and the resolution of risk conflicts: an institutional study of the British compulsory seat belt debate. Mimeo. Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Manchester.
23.
Irwin, A., Smith, D. and Griffiths, R., 1982. Risk analysis and public policy for major hazards. Physics in Technology, 13: 258-265.
24.
Lukes, S., 1974. Power: a Radical View. Macmillan, London.
25.
Nelkin, D., 1975. The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science, 5: 35-54.
26.
Nelkin, D., 1979. Science, technology and political conflict: analysing the issues. In: D. Nelkin (Editor), Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA: 9-22.
27.
Pearce, F., 1981. The time bomb on London's doorstep. New Scientist, 23/30 December 1981: 779.
28.
Smith, D., 1988. Corporate power, risk assessment and the control of major hazards: a comparison between Canvey Island and Ellesmere Port. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Manchester.
29.
Thompson, P., 1983. The Nature of Work. Macmillan, London.
30.
Weinberg, A.M., 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10: 209-222.
31.
Wynne, B., 1982. Nuclear Decision Making — Rationality or Ritual ? British Society for the History of Science, London.
32.
Wynne, B., 1983. Redefining the issues of risk and public acceptance: the social viability of technology. Futures, 15: 13-32.
