Risk-based Regulation in Continental Europe? Explaining the Corporatist Turn to Risk in German Work Safety Policies.
Risk-based Regulation in Continental Europe? Explaining the Corporatist Turn to Risk in German Work Safety Policies.
复制标题
欧洲大陆基于风险的监管？
DOI：
10.18278/epa.1.2.2
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Michael Huber
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Regine Paul;Michael Huber
虽然在盎格鲁-撒克逊的学术和政治辩论中获得了相关性，但基于风险的监管似乎对欧洲大陆的环境很陌生。在德国等国，较为分散和往往是社团主义的决策形式被认为是基于风险的政策干预合理化的主要障碍。基于对德国安全生产政策的深入案例研究，本文从理论和实证两方面对这一解释进行了细致的分析。它认为，首先，目前基于风险的监管研究遭受系统性的偏见，以竞争为导向的监管形式，如此广泛地传播在盎格鲁-撒克逊世界。因此，他们误解了欧洲其他地方替代监管方法的动态和合理性。第二，正如我们的政策分析所显示的，这一点在社团主义和自我监管的政策制定形式中尤其如此，这是德国工作安全案例的特征。社团主义安排不仅没有阻碍基于风险的监管的采用，反而具有独特的结构特征，使风险工具具有吸引力。这一发现超出了当代基于风险的监管学术的范围。与盎格鲁-撒克逊背景下所声称的不同，效率和有效性的希望并不是社团主义工作安全政策安排中基于风险的方法的助推器。相反，风险工具服务于结构性需求，以维持信任关系，合理化共识发现，并促进自律环境中的团结。我们的结论是，一个社团主义类型的风险为基础的监管需要补充现有的竞争为基础的类型占空间，功能和意识形态的多样性的经验案例的风险为基础的监管。我们还提出了这样一个新的研究议程的第一个进展，强调最重要的是，有必要跟踪特定类型的基于风险的监管研究框架，可以超越国家本质主义的出现和动态。
While having gained relevance in Anglo-Saxon scholarly and political debates, risk-based regulation seems to be a stranger to continental European settings. The more fragmented and often corporatist forms of decision making in countries such as Germany have been identified as key obstacles to a risk-based rationalization of policy interventions. Based on an in-depth case study of German work safety policies, this article nuances this account theoretically and empirically. It argues, firstly, that current risk-based regulation studies suffer from a systemic bias toward the competition-oriented forms of regulation so widely spread in the Anglo-Saxon world. They thereby misread the dynamics and rationalities of alternative regulatory approaches elsewhere in Europe. Secondly, as our policy analysis shows, this is especially true of corporatist and self-regulatory forms of policymaking, which characterize the case of German work safety. Rather than impeding the adoption of risk-based regulation, corporatist arrangements bear distinct structural features that render risk tools attractive. This finding goes beyond the scope of contemporary risk-based regulation scholarship. Unlike claimed for the Anglo-Saxon context, hopes of efficiency and effectiveness are not boosters for risk-based approaches in corporatist work safety policy arrangements. Instead, risk tools serve the structural need to sustain trust relationships, rationalize consensus finding, and promote solidarity within self-regulatory settings. We conclude that a corporatist type of risk-based regulation needs to complement the existing competition-based type to account for the spatial, functional, and ideological diversity of empirical cases of risk-based regulation. We also propose the first advances toward such a new research agenda, highlighting most importantly the necessity to trace the emergence and dynamics of specific types of risk-based regulation in research frameworks which can surmount national essentialism.