(HowSAFE): How States Account for Failure in Europe: Risk and the Limits of Governance

(HowSAFE)：各国如何解释欧洲的失败：风险和治理的局限性

• 批准号: 218575778
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Olivier Borraz
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Centre de Sociologie des Organisations (CSO)
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 财政年份: 2012
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2011-12-31 至 2016-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/218575778?language=en
• 关键词: HowSAFE; How; States; Account; Failure

What do environmental protection, health care, workplace safety, food, criminal justice, and education share in common? These diverse policy domains are increasingly governed through ¿risk-based¿ approaches to regulation and management. Rather than seeking to eliminate all potential adverse outcomes, risk-based governance involves defining acceptable levels of risk, based on formal assessments of their probability and consequences, and then focusing control efforts on those risks deemed unacceptable following clearly defined principles. First developed in the fields of environmental health and safety, this risk-based approach has become pervasive, particularly in Anglo-Saxon countries, and is now being promoted internationally as a universal principle for policymaking and implementation, promising a more efficient and rational means of organising governance activities and accounting for their limits and potential failures. However, risk-based approaches embody particular understandings about how the State should define, and account for, adverse governance outcomes and, indeed, the very meaning of governance ¿failure¿ and ¿success¿. Such ex ante risk-based rationalisations of the limits of governance may conflict with embedded governance traditions, norms, and accountability structures, as well as with deeply held societal values and expectations about how adverse outcomes should be managed, which vary both across countries and policy domains. To understand the institutional factors shaping the spread and adoption of risk-based governance, HowSAFE uses a comparative case study design focusing on six policy domains¿occupational health & safety, flooding, food safety, health care, criminal justice, and education¿and four countries¿France, Germany, the Netherlands, and UK¿to pursue three closely related objectives:1) To document the extent, and diffusion processes, of risk-based governance across policy domains and national settings in Europe;2) To compare the design, adaptation and practical application of risk-based instruments to different governance activities and functions, within and between policy domains; 3) To use that comparative dataset to explain the institutional factors driving, shaping, and constraining risk-based governance in Europe, and in so doing reflect more broadly on how states account for failure and the limits of governance.

环境保护、医疗保健、工作场所安全、食品、刑事司法和教育有什么共同之处？这些不同的政策领域越来越多地通过“基于风险”的监管和管理方法来管理。基于风险的治理不是寻求消除所有潜在的不利结果，而是基于对其可能性和后果的正式评估，定义可接受的风险级别，然后根据明确定义的原则，将控制工作集中在那些被认为不可接受的风险上。这种基于风险的方法最初是在环境健康和安全领域发展起来的，现在已经普及，特别是在盎格鲁-撒克逊国家，现在正在国际上作为决策和执行的普遍原则加以推广，有望成为组织治理活动并解释其局限性和潜在失败的更有效和合理的手段。然而，基于风险的方法体现了对国家应如何定义和解释不利治理结果以及治理失败和成功的真正含义的特殊理解。这种事前基于风险的治理限制合理化可能与根深蒂固的治理传统、规范和问责制结构相冲突，也可能与根深蒂固的社会价值观和关于如何管理不利结果的期望相冲突，这些价值观和期望因国家和政策领域而异。为了了解影响基于风险的治理的传播和采用的制度因素，HowSAFE使用了一个比较案例研究设计，重点关注六个政策领域——职业健康与安全、洪水、食品安全、医疗保健、刑事司法和教育——和四个国家——法国、德国、荷兰和英国——来追求三个密切相关的目标：1)记录程度和传播过程；欧洲跨政策领域和国家环境的基于风险的治理；2)比较基于风险的工具的设计、调整和实际应用，以适应不同的治理活动和功能，在政策领域内部和之间；3)使用该比较数据集来解释驱动、塑造和约束欧洲基于风险的治理的制度因素，从而更广泛地反映国家如何解释失败和治理的局限性。