International Journal of Disaster Risk Science

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 11–20

Understanding risk governance: Introducing sociological neoinstitutionalism and foucauldian governmentality for further theorizing

Open Access
Article

Abstract

This article traces the career of risk across prominent theoretical approaches by highlighting their key assumptions and premises, specifically the technical approach found in the physical sciences, and economics, psychology, and sociology in the social sciences. In each discipline, the strengths and limitations of each theoretical approach are pointed out. The discussion focuses on sociology in particular because other approaches—in treating risks as dominantly technical, psychological, or economic phenomena—tend to downplay the broader historical and socio-political context that impinges on risk construction and production, and its differential impact across society. This exploration points out that institutions play an important role in creating, managing, and distributing risks in society. After highlighting the integrated risk governance framework as a nascent practice-oriented framework, the framework is examined theoretically using sociological neoinstitutionalism and Foucault’s concept of governmentality. The conclusion elaborates the challenges of using these two bodies of knowledge to study risk governance of extreme events. Although Foucault’s concept of governmentality corrects neoinstitutional theory’s ambivalence toward power, more work needs to be done in order to reconcile their divergent intellectual commitments.

Keywords

governmentality risk risk governance sociological neoinstitutionalism 

References

  1. Archibald, M. E. 2004. Between Isomorphism and Market Partitioning: How Organizational Competencies and Resources Foster Cultural and Sociocultural Legitimacy, and Promote Organizational Survival. Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Legitimacy Processes in Organizations 22: 171–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldi, B. 1995. Institutional Change versus Institutional Persistence? The Transformation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission since Three Mile Island. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center Preliminary Paper 236.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, P. L., and Luckmann T. [1966] 1991. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, P. L. 1996. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, and B. Wisner. 2001. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bradbury, J. A. 1989. The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values 14(4): 380–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, S., and J. Molin. 1995. Origin and Transformation of Organizations: Institutional Analysis of the Danish Red Cross. In The Institutional Construction of Organizations, edited by W. R. Scott and S. Christensen, 67–90. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, L. 1988. Explaining Choices among Technological Risks. Social Problems 35(1): 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, L., and J. F. J. Short. 1993. Social Organization and Risk: Some Current Controversies. Annual Review of Sociology 19(1): 375–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, D. J., M. Ezzamel, and H. Willmott. 2008. Examining “Institutionalism”: A Critical Theoretic Perspective. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby, 673–701. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daft, R. L., and K. E. Weick. 1984. Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. Academy of Management Review 9(2): 284–95.Google Scholar
  13. Dean, M. 2010. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Deephouse, D. L. 1996. Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Academy of Management Journal 39(4): 1024–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deephouse, D. L., and M. Suchman. 2004. Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby, 49–77. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Deuchars, R. 2010. Towards the Global Social: Sociological Reflections on Governance and Risk in the Context of the Current Financial Crisis. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23(1): 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. In Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, edited by L. G. Zucker, 3–21. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. —. 1994. Culture and Economy. In The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg, 27–57. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. —. 1991. Introduction. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, 1–38. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Douglas, M. 1990. Risk as a Forensic Resource. Daedalus 119(4): 1–16.Google Scholar
  22. Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2003. Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets (March 2003): Summary of Findings.Google Scholar
  24. Feinstein, J. 2006. Managing Reliability in Electric Power Companies. In Seeds of Disasters, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, edited by P. E. Auerswald, L. M. Branscomb, T. M. La Porte, and E. O. Michel-Kerjan, 164–83. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process. Risk Analysis 15(2): 137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. [1977] 1995. Discipline and Punish. Translated by A. Sheridan. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  27. —. 2007. 8 February 1978. In Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78, edited by M. Senellart, 115–34. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freudenburg, W. R. 1992. Nothing Recedes Like Success? Risk Analysis and the Organizational Amplification of Risks. Risk 3(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
  29. —. 1993. Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions. Social Forces 71(4): 909–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freudenburg, W. R., R. Gramling, S. Laska, and K. T. Erikson. 2007. Katrina: Unlearned Lessons. World Watch 20(5): 14–19.Google Scholar
  31. Friedland, R., and R. R. Alford. 1991. Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, 232–63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gordon, C. 1991. Governmental Rationality: An introduction. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, edited by G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hansson, S. O. 2010. Risk: Objective or Subjective, Facts or Values. Journal of Risk Research 13(2): 231–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hutter, B. M. 2006. Risk, Regulation, and Management. In Risk in Social Science, edited by P. Taylor-Gooby and J. O. Zinn, 202–27. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jaeger, C. C., O. Renn, E. A. Rosa, and T. Webler. 2001. Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  36. Jasanoff, S. 1990. American Exceptionalism and the Political Acknowledgment of Risk. Daedalus 119(4): 61–81.Google Scholar
  37. —. 2010. Beyond Calculation: A Democratic Response to Risk. In Disaster and the Politics of Intervention, edited by A. Lakoff, 14–40. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jepperson, R. L. 2002. The Development and Application of Sociological Neoinstitutionalism. In New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory, edited by J. Berger and M. Zelditch Jr., 229–66.Google Scholar
  39. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Jepperson, R. L., and J. W. Meyer. 1991. The Public Order and the Construction of Formal Organizations. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, 204–31. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kahneman, D., and D. Lovallo. 1993. Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk-Taking. Management Science 39(1): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kasperson, R. E. 1992. The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework. In Social Theories of Risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 153–78. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Kasperson, R. E., R. Ortwin, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick. 1988. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis 8(2): 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Vol. 80, Sage Library of Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Leblebici, H., G. R. Salancik, A. Copay, and T. King. 1991. Institutional Change and the Transformation of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3): 333–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lemke, T. 2002. Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. Remaking Marxism 14(3): 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Luhmann, N. 1993. Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Manning, P. K. 1989. Managing Risk: Managing Uncertainty in the British Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. Law and Policy 11(3): 350–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Masuda, J. R., and T. Garvin. 2006. Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk. Risk Analysis 26(2): 437–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meyer, J. W. 2008. Reflections on Institutional Theories of Organizations. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby, 790–812. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meyer, J. W., and W. R. Scott, eds. 1983. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Mohr, J. W., and R. Friedland. 2008. Theorizing the Institution: Foundation, Duality, and Data. Theory and Society 37: 421–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. North, D. C. 1994. Economic Performance through Time. American Economic Review 84(3): 358–68.Google Scholar
  56. Nye, J. S., and J. D. Donahue, eds. 2000. Governance in a Globalizing World. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  57. O’Neill, K. M., J. M. Calia, C. Chess, and L. Clarke. 2007. Miscommunication during the Anthrax Attacks: How Events Reveal Organizational Failures. Human Ecology Review 14(2): 119–29.Google Scholar
  58. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1): 145–79.Google Scholar
  59. Onishi, N., and K. Belson. 2011. Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant. The New York Times, April 26, 2011, New York edition, A1.Google Scholar
  60. Otway, H., and K. Thomas. 1982. Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy. Risk Analysis 2(2): 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  62. —. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 3rd ed. New York: Newbery Award Records.Google Scholar
  63. —. 2011. The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Attacks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Pidgeon, N., R. E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. 2003. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pinch, T. J., and W. E. Bijker. 1984. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Powell, W. W., and P. J. DiMaggio, eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Power, M. 2011. Foucault and Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 37: 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Quarantelli, E. L. 2005. A Social Science Research Agenda for the Disasters of the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Issues and Their Professional Implementation. In What Is a Disaster?: New Answers to Old Questions, edited by R. W. Perry and E. L. Quarantelli, 325–96. Philadelphia: Xlibris.Google Scholar
  69. Renn, O. 1992. Concepts of Risks: A Classification. In Social Theories of Risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 53–79. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. —. 1998. Three Decades of Risk Research. Journal of Risk Research 1(1): 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. —. 2008a. Concepts of Risk: An Interdisciplinary Review. GAIA — Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 17(1): 50–66.Google Scholar
  72. —. 2008b. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  73. Renn, O., and K. D. Walker, eds. 2008. Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Rose, N. 1999. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. 2nd ed. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  75. Sapolsky, H. M. 1990. The Politics of Risk. Daedalus 119(4): 83–96.Google Scholar
  76. Schmidt, V. 2006. Institutionalism. In The State: Theories and Issues, edited by C. Hay, M. Lister, and D. Marsh, 98–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  77. Schneiberg, M., and T. Bartley. 2001. Regulating American Industries: Markets, Politics, and the Institutional Determinants of Fire Insurance Regulation. American Journal of Sociology 107(1): 101–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scott, W. R. 1991. Unpacking Institutional Arrangements. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, 164–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. —. 2001. Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed. Foundations for Organizational Science Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  80. Selznick, P. 1996. Institutionalism: “Old” and “new”. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(2): 270–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Short Jr, J. F. 1984. The Social Fabric at Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis. American Sociological Review 49(6): 711–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1985. Risk Analysis and Scientific Method: Methodological and Ethical Problems with Evaluating Societal Hazards. Dodrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236(4799): 280–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. —. 1992. Perceptions of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In Social Theories of Risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 117–52. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  85. —. 1999. Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk Assessment Battlefield. Risk Analysis 19(4): 689–701.Google Scholar
  86. Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. 2004. Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk Analysis 24(2): 311–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Why Study Risk Perceptions? Risk Analysis 2(2): 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stallings, R. A. 1995. Promoting Risk: Constructing the Earthquake Threat. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  89. Starr, C. 1969. Social Benefit versus Technological Risk. Science 165(3899): 1232–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Starr, C., and C. Whipple. 1980. Risks of Risk Decisions. Science 208(4448): 1114–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. —. 1984. A Perspective on Health and Safety Risk Analysis. Management Science 30(4): 452–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Suchman, M. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.Google Scholar
  93. Taylor-Gooby, P., and J. O. Zinn. 2006. Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology. Risk Analysis 26(2): 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tierney, K. J. 1999. Towards a Critical Sociology of Risk. Sociological Forum 14(2): 215–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. —. 2005. Social Inequality, Hazards and Disasters. In On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, edited by R. J. Daniels, D. F. Kettl, and H. Kunreuther, 109–28. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  96. Tierney, K. J., and C. Bevc. 2007. Disaster as War: Militarism and the Social Construction of Disaster in New Orleans. In The Sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on A Modern Catastrophe, edited by D. L. Brunsma, D. Overfelt, and J. S. Picou, 35–50. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  97. Tolbert, P. S., and L. G. Zucker. 1983. Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly 28(1): 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Turner, B. A. 1976. The Organizational and Interorganizational Development of Disasters. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(3): 378–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. —. 1979. The Social Aetiology of Disasters. Disasters 3(1): 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211(4481): 453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force. 2004. Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. https://reports.energy.gov/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf.
  102. Vaughan, D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  103. —. 1999. The Role of Organization in the Production of Techno-Scientific Knowledge. Social Studies of Science 29(6): 913–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. —. 2004. Theorizing Disaster: Analogy, Historical Ethnography, and the Challenger Accident. Ethnography 5(3): 315–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Weinberg, A. M. 1972. Science and Trans-Science. Minerva 10(2): 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Williamson, O. E. 1994. Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory. In Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg, 77–107. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Zucker, L. G., ed. 1988. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Natural Hazards CenterInstitute of Behavioral ScienceBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations