Risk, rationality, and resilience

Open Access
Article

Abstract

Improving our ability to cope with large risks is one of the key challenges for humankind in this century. This article outlines a research program in this perspective. Starting with a concrete example of a relatively small disaster, it questions simplistic ideas of rationality. It then proposes a fresh look at the concepts of probability and utility in the context of socio-ecological systems. This leads first to an emphasis on the problem of equilibrium selection, and then to a distinction between three kinds of resilience that matter both for theory and practice of risk management. They can be investigated by paying attention to the transitions into and out of actual disasters.

Keywords

integrated risk governance rationality resilience risk 

References

  1. Aumann, R. 1974. Subjectivity and Correlation in Randomized Strategies. Journal of Mathematical Economics 1 (1): 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colander, D., M. Goldberg, A. Haas, K. Juselius, A. Kirman, T. Lux, and B. Sloth. 2009. The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics. Critical Review 21 (2&3): 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Devlin, K. 2008. The Unfinished Game: Pascal, Fermat, and the 17th-Century Letter that Made the World Modern. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. The Economist. 2010. Death in Duisburg. http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/love_parade.Google Scholar
  5. Feyerabend, P. 1992. Erkenntnis ohne Theorie. Vom Nutzen der Abstraktion und vom Recht des Besonderen. Lettre International (L 16): 66–71.Google Scholar
  6. Flood, M. M. 1952. Some Experimental Games. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  7. Gintis, H. 2009. The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hawthorne, J. 1994. On the Nature of Bayesian Convergence. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol 1, 241–49.Google Scholar
  9. Helbing, D., L. Buzna, A. Johansson, and T. Werner. 2005. Self-Organized Pedestrian Crowd Dynamics: Experiments, Simulations, and Design Solutions. Transportation Science 39 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Integrated Risk Governance Project. 2010. IRG-Project Science Plan. Potsdam-Beijing. http://www.irg-project.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/publications/PUBLIC/ABOUT_IRGProject/ irg-project_SP_Mar10_final__wf_small.pdf&t=1282858339&hash=66b9951889b248eefd3322694520bbb7.Google Scholar
  11. Jaeger, C., O. Renn, E. A. Rosa, and T. Webler. 2001. Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  12. Jallais, S., P.-C. Pradier, and D. Teira. 2008. Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions. History of the Human Sciences 21 (2): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kasperson, R. E., O. Renn, 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
  14. Nash, J. 1950. Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36 (1): 48–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1947. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (2nd edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents. Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Poundstone, W. 1992. Prisoner’s Dilemma: John von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  19. Schreckenberg, M., and R. Selten, eds. 2004. Human Behaviour and Traffic Networks. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Shiller, R. J. 2003. The New Financial Order: Risk in the 21st Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Swinburne, R., ed. 2002. Bayes’s Theorem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Walker, B. H., J. M. Anderies, A. P. Kinzig, P. Ryan, eds. 2006. Exploring Resilience in Socio-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11 (1): 12.Google Scholar
  23. Weick, K. E., and K. M. Sutcliffe. 2001. Managing the Unexpected-Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Wilkinson, A. 2009. In Search of Theory. Journal of Futures Studies 13 (3): 107–14.Google Scholar
  25. Wyart, M., and J.-P. Bouchaud. 2003. Self Referential Behaviour, Overreaction and Conventions in Financial Markets. http://www.cfm.fr/papers/Wyart2.pdf.Google Scholar
  26. Young, H. P. 1993. The Evolution of Conventions. Econometrica 61 (1): 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young, O. R., F. Berhhout, G. C. Gallopin, M. A. Janssen, E. Ostrom, and S. van der Leeuw. 2006. The Globalization of Socio-Ecological Systems: An Agenda for Scientific Research. Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 304–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zha, H. 2006. Interactive Technologies and Sociotechnical Systems. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, International Society on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. October 18–20, 2006, Xi’an, China.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

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.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations