How fair is safe enough. The cultural approach to societal technology choice
This paper consists of an argument and a pilot study. First is a general, perhaps philosophical, argument against the National Academy's viewpoint that dealing with risk is a two-stage process consisting of (a) assessment of facts, and (b) evaluation of facts in sociopolitical context. They argue that societal risk intrinsically revolves around social relations as much as around evaluations of probability. Second, they outline one particular approach to analyzing societal risk management styles. They call this the fairness hypothesis. Rather than focusing on probabilities and magnitudes of undesired events, this approach emphasizes societal preferences for principles of achieving consent to a technology, distributing liabilities, and investing trust in institutions. Conflict rather than probability is the chief focus of this approach to societal risk management. This view is illustrated by a recent empirical pilot study that explored the fairness hypothesis in the context of new nuclear technologies.
- Research Organization:
- Oak Ridge National Lab., TN
- OSTI ID:
- 6025706
- Journal Information:
- Risk Anal.; (United States), Journal Name: Risk Anal.; (United States) Vol. 7:1; ISSN RIAND
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Fairness hypothesis and managing the risks of societal technology choices
Role of liability preferences in societal technology choices: results of a pilot study
Related Subjects
290300 -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Environment
Health
& Safety
290600 -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Nuclear Energy
530200* -- Environmental-Social Aspects of Energy Technologies-- Assessment of Energy Technologies-- (-1989)
DECISION MAKING
ELECTRIC UTILITIES
ENERGY
ENERGY SOURCE DEVELOPMENT
HAZARDS
HEALTH HAZARDS
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
INSURANCE
LIABILITIES
MANAGEMENT
MARKET
NUCLEAR ENERGY
NUCLEAR FACILITIES
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
POLITICAL ASPECTS
POWER PLANTS
PROBABILITY
PUBLIC OPINION
PUBLIC POLICY
PUBLIC RELATIONS
PUBLIC UTILITIES
RADIATION HAZARDS
RISK ASSESSMENT
SAFETY
SOCIAL IMPACT
TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS
THERMAL POWER PLANTS