Advertisement

Introduction

  • Jale Tosun
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL, volume 3)

Abstract

Policy making is one of the most fundamental tasks of modern states. Yet the making of any policy decision is always characterized by a degree of uncertainty (Dahl 1957, p. 279). Uncertainty can refer to the effectiveness or the efficiency of the chosen policy measure for solving the underlying, often complex social problem. Likewise, uncertainty can refer to the consequences of a policy decision for policy makers’ re-election prospects. But uncertainty can also represent the key feature of the social problem that a given policy measure aims to tackle, which we refer to here as a risk issue.

Keywords

European Union World Trade Organization Risk Issue Precautionary Principle Precautionary Measure 
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.

References

  1. Ansell, C., and D. Vogel (eds.). 2006. What’s the beef? The contested governance of European Food Safety. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2010. Risk management and governance. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Capano, G. 2009. Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 11: 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahl, R. 1957. Decision-making in a democracy: the Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law 6: 279–295.Google Scholar
  5. Dowd, A.-M., P. Ashworth, M. Rodriguez, and T. Jeanneret. 2012. CCS in the media: An analysis of international coverage. Energy and Environment 23: 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drezner, D.W. 2007. All politics is global—Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gerring, J. 2007. Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies 40: 231–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Howlett, M., and B. Cashore. 2009. The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 11: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 2002. The policy effects of internationalization: A subsystem adjustment analysis of policy change. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 4: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. 1986. Risk management and political culture. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Knill, C., and J. Tosun. 2012. Public policy: A new introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Knill, C., K. Schulze, and J. Tosun. 2012. Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship. Regulation & Governance. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01150.x.
  13. Lasswell, H.D. 1956. The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pollack, M.A., and G.C. Shaffer. 2009. When cooperation fails. The international law and politics of genetically modified foods. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ringquist, E.J., J. Worsham, and M.A. Eisner. 2003. Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13: 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Skogstad, G. 2001. The WTO and food safety regulatory policy innovation in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 39: 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sotirov, M., and M. Memmler. 2012. The Advocacy Coalition Framework in natural resource policy studies—recent experiences and further prospects. Forest Policy and Economics 16: 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tosun, J. 2013. Environmental policy change in emerging market democracies—Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America compared. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  19. Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players. How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Van Zwanenberg, P., and E. Millstone. 2005. BSE: Risk, science and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vogel, D. 1995. Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Vogel, D. 2003. The hare and the tortoise revisited: The new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe. British Journal of Political Science 33: 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Von Schomberg, R. 2006. The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 19–42. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Vos, E. ed. 2008. European risk governance: Its Science, its inclusiveness and its effectiveness. CONNEX—Network of Excellence University of Mannheim Report Series. http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/index.php?id=599. Accessed 21 June 2012.
  25. Wlezien, C. 2005. On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’. Electoral Studies 24: 555–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zander, J. 2010. The application of the precautionary principle in practice comparative dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mannheim Centre for European Social ResearchUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations