Disasters Ever More? Reducing U.S. Vulnerabilities

  • Charles Perrow
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)


Natural disasters, unintended disasters (largely industrial and technological), and deliberate disasters have all increased in number and intensity in the United States in the last quarter century2(see Figure 32.1) In the United States we may prevent some and mitigate some, but we can’t escape them. At present, we focus on protecting the targets and mitigating the consequences, and we should do our best at that. But our organizations are simply not up to the challenge from the increasing number of disasters. What we can more profitably do is reduce the size of the targets, that is, reduce the concentrations of energy found in hazardous materials, the concentration of power in vital organizations, and the concentrations of humans in risky locations. Smaller, dispersed targets of nature’s wrath, industrial accidents, or terrorist’s aim will kill fewer and cause less economic and social disruption.


Terrorist Attack Power Grid Hazardous Material Critical Infrastructure Industrial Accident 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Lazerson, M., & Lorenzoni, G. (1999). The networks that feed industrial districts: A return to the Italian source. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Tierney, K.J. (2003). Disaster beliefs and institutional interests: Recycling disaster myths in the aftermath of 9–11. In L. Clarke (Ed.), Terrorism and disaster: New threats, new ideas: Research in social problems and public policy (pp. 33–51). New York, Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashford, N.A. (1993). The encouragement of technological change for preventing chemical accidents: Moving from secondary prevention and mitigation to primary prevention. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development.Google Scholar
  4. Lazerson, M. (1988). Organizational growth of small firms: An outcome of markets and hierarchies? American Sociological Review 53, 330–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Amin, A. (2000). Industrial districts. In E. Sheppard & T. J. Barnes (Eds.), A companion to economic geography (pp. 149–168). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Harrison, B. (1994). Lean and mean: The changing landscape of corporate power in the age of flexibility. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Lieberman, M.B. (1987). Market growth, economies of scale, and plant size in the chemical processing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 36, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meyer, M.W., & Zucker, L.G. (1989). Permanently failing organizations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  10. Piore, M., & Sable, C. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. McLean, B., & Elkind P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room; The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  12. Wald, M. (2005). Experts assess deregulation as factor in ’03 blackout. The New York Times, September 16, 2005, A5, 20.Google Scholar
  13. Purvis, M., & Bauler, J. (2004). Irresponsible care: The failure of the chemical industry to protect the public from chemical accidents. New York: United States Public Interest Research Group Education Fund.Google Scholar
  14. Flynn, S. (2004). America the vulnerable : How our government is failing to protect us from terrorism. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  15. Grant, D., & Jones, A.W. (2003). Are subsidiaries more prone to pollute? New evidence from the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory. Social Science Quarterly, 84 (March), 162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Perrow, C. (1992). Small firm networks: Networks and organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Grant, D., Jones, A.W., &. Bergesen, A.J. (2002). Organizational size and pollution: The case of the U.S. chemical industry. American Sociological Review, 67 (June), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleindorfer, P.R., Belke, J.C., Elliott, M.R., Lee, K., Lowe R.A., & Feldman, H.I. (2003). Accident epidemiology and the U.S. chemical industry: Accident history and worst-case data from risk management program info. Risk Analysis, 23, 865–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke, L. (2005). Worst cases: Terror and catastrophe in the popular imagination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Powell, W.W. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152, 197–215.Google Scholar
  21. Saxenian, A. (1996). Regional advantage culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (pp. xi, 226 pp). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Clarke, L. (2002). Panic: Myth or reality? Contexts, 1(3), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Perrow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations