Mechanisms of Systematic Risk Production

Chapter

Abstract

The concentration and densification of social processes is the quintessential feature of cities in general. This offers manifold opportunities: in a material/factual dimension they sustain functional processes for the provision of basic human needs such as energy, food, water and housing; in a temporal dimension they organize and coordinate the numerous municipal processes required to achieve synchronization; in a social dimension they implement measures to include the population at structural and normative levels with regard to participation in functional system services. We argue that while reproducing these functions, megacities, in particular, simultaneously create conditions that jeopardize them with what we call systematic risk production mechanisms. Using four distinctions (Attraction/Exposure, Metabolization/Deterioration, Synchronization/Desynchronization, Inclusion/Exclusion) we analyse their development in order to exemplify the non-linear dynamics and self-enforcing, mutually amplifying processes of such complex research objects as megacities. Our ultimate goal is to produce a heuristic for interdisciplinary research and create a scientific approach with a common frame of reference for the different research disciplines involved.

Keywords

Danger Functions Hazard Interdisciplinary research Risk Social mechanisms Systemic risk 

References

  1. Auyero, J. (2000). The logic of clientelism in Latin America: An ethnographic approach. Latin American Research Review, 35(3), 55–81.Google Scholar
  2. Baecker, D. (2004). Miteinander leben, ohne sich zu kennen: Die Ökologie der Stadt. Soziale Systeme, 10(2), 257–272.Google Scholar
  3. Bartle, I., Laperrouza, M. (2008). Systemic risk in the network industries: is there a governance gap?, 5th ECPR general conference, Potsdam University, September 10th–12th, 2009, Potsdam; published by Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, School of Management, University of Bath, available online at: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/142565/files/Bartle%20Laperrouza%20ECPR%20Sept09%20systemic%20risk.pdf, last access at 2010-09-29.
  4. Bechmann, G. (1990). Großtechnische Systeme, Risiko und gesellschaftliche Unsicherheit. In J. Halfmann & K. P. Japp (Eds). Riskante Entscheidungen und Katastrophenpotentiale: Elemente einer soziologischen Risikoforschung (pp. 123–149). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Berz, G. (Ed.) (2004). Megacities – Megarisks. Trends and challenges for insurance and risk management. München: MunichRe.Google Scholar
  6. Brunner, P. H., & Rechberger, H. (2004). Practical handbook of material flow analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis.Google Scholar
  7. Cardona, O. D. (2003). The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: A necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. http://www.desenredando.org. Accessed 22 April 2008.
  8. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society – The information age: Society, economy, and culture (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Conze, W. (2004). Sicherheit, Schutz. In O. Brunner, W. Conze, & R. Koselleck (Eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland - Band 5 (pp. 831–862). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  10. Dauvergne, P. (2008). The shadows of consumption. Consequences for the global environment. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deffner, V. (2007). Soziale Verwundbarkeit im ‘Risikoraum Favela’ – Eine Analyse des sozialen Raumes auf der Grundlage von Bourdieus “Theorie der Praxis”. In R. Wehrhahn (Ed.), Risiko und Vulnerabilität in Lateinamerika (Vol. 117, pp. 207–232). Kiel: Selbstverlag des Geographischen Instituts der Universität Kiel.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Feldbauer, P., & Parnreiter, C. (1997). Megastädte – Weltstädte – Global cities. In D. Bronger, P. Feldbauer, K. Husa, & E. Pilz (Eds.), Mega-cities: die Metropolen des Südens zwischen Globalisierung und Fragmentierung (clone) (Vol. 12, pp. 9–19). Frankfurt am Main: Brandes Apsel.Google Scholar
  14. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Germani, G. (1973). Urbanization, social change, and the great transformation. In G. Germani (Ed.), Modernization, urbanization, and the urban crisis (pp. 3–58). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  16. Greiving, S. (2002). Räumliche Planung und Risiko. München: Gerling Akad. Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Häußermann, H. (2006). Die Krise der sozialen Stadt. Warum der sozialräumliche Wandel der Städte eine eigenständige Ursache für Ausgrenzung ist. In H. Bude & A. Willisch (Eds.), Das Problem der Exklusion: Ausgegrenzte, Entbehrliche, Überflüssige (pp. 295–313). Hamburg: Hamburger.Google Scholar
  18. Hellström, T. (2009). New vistas for technology and risk assessment? The OECD programme on emerging systemic risks and beyond. Technology in Society, 31, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Japp, K. P. (2007). Regionen und Differenzierung. Soziale Systeme, 13(1 & 2), 185–195.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Subjective probability: A judgement of representativeness. In D. Kahneman (Ed.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 32–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. http://www.econlib.org/library/Knight/knRUP.html. Accessed 03 May 2011.
  23. Kraas, F. (2003). Megacities as global risk areas. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 147(4), 6–15.Google Scholar
  24. Krugman, P. (2008). The international finance multiplier. http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/finmult.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2009.
  25. La Porte, T. R. (1975). Organized social complexity: Explication of a concept. In T. R. La Porte (Ed.), Organized social complexity: Challenge to politics and policy (pp. 3–39). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lovelock, J. (2009). The vanishing face of gaia: A final warning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Luhmann, N. (1995). Inklusion und Exklusion. In N. Luhmann (Ed.), Soziologische Aufklärung: Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft (pp. 237–264). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Luhmann, N. (1999). Grundrechte als Institution: ein Beitrag zur politischen Soziologie (4th ed.). Berlin: Duncker Humblot.Google Scholar
  29. Luhmann, N. (2005). Risk: A sociological theory. New Brunswick/New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Marcuse, P. (2006). Die Stadt – Begriff und Bedeutung. In H. Berking (Ed.), Die Macht des Lokalen in einer Welt ohne Grenzen (pp. 201–215). Frankfurt/Main: Campus-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics. Deviation-amplifying mutual causal Processes. American Scientist, 51, 164–179.Google Scholar
  32. Mayhew, B. H., & Levinger, R. L. (1977). Size and density of interaction in human aggregates. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(1), 86–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mehta, S. (2005). Maximum city: Bombay lost and found. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  34. Nassehi, A. (2002). Dichte Räume. Städte als Synchronisations- und Inklusionsmaschinen. In M. Löw (Ed.), Differenzierungen des Städtischen (Vol. 15, pp. 211–232). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  35. OECD. (2003). Emerging risks in the 21st century. An agenda for action. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  36. Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  37. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents. Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Perrow, C. (2007). The next catastrophe: Reducing our vulnerabilities to natural, industrial, and terrorist disasters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rowe, W. D. (1977). An anatomy of risk. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Sagan, Scott D. (1994). Toward a Political Theory of Organizational Safety; in: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Band 2, Nr. 4, S. 228–240.Google Scholar
  41. Siavelis, P. (2006). Accommodating informal institutions and Chilean democracy. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal institutions and democracy: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 33–55). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Starr, C. (1993). Sozialer Nutzen versus technisches Risiko. In G. Bechmann (Ed.), Risiko und Gesellschaft: Grundlagen und Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Risikoforschung (pp. 3–24). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Stichweh, R. (1998). Raum, Region und Stadt in der Systemtheorie. Soziale Systeme, 4(2), 341–358.Google Scholar
  44. Stichweh, R. (2005). Inklusion und Exklusion: Studien zur Gesellschaftstheorie. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  45. Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corel, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X., Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., & Schiller, A. (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS, 100(14), 8074–8079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Un, E. C. L. A. (1973). Some consequences of urbanization for the total social structure (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America). In G. Germani (Ed.), Modernization, urbanization, and the urban crisis (pp. 151–167). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  47. Wenzel, F., Bendimerad, F., & Sinha, R. (2007). Megacities – Megarisks. Natural Hazards, 42, 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance: Governing the global knowledge society. Frankfurt/Main: Campus-Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. Windolf, P. (2009). Zehn Thesen zur Finanzmarktkrise. Leviathan, 37, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wisner, B. (1999). There are worse things than earthquakes: Hazard vulnerability and mitigation capacity in Greater Los Angeles. In J. K. Mitchell (Ed.), Crucibles of hazard: Mega-cities and disasters in transition (pp. 375–427). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davies, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)Eggenstein-LeopoldshafenGermany

Personalised recommendations