Risk vs. Hazard and the Two Souls of EU Risk Regulation: A Reply to Ragnar Löfstedt

European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 2, 2011

5 Pages Posted: 1 Aug 2011

Date Written: July 30, 2011

Abstract

According to a familiar script, the EU has, in recent years, been subscribing to a progressive ideal of regulation based on evidence. Given the historical affection of the EU integration process to technocratic modes of governance, this choice is not surprising. Yet, as it emerges from the powerful j’accuse delivered by Löfstedt in his opening essay, the EU’s turn towards evidence-based regulation has been accompanied by a parallel trend towards a more flexible, precautionary-oriented approach vis-à-vis the government of risk. Although not necessarily anti-scientific, this other ‘soul’ of EU risk regulation is messy, pluralistic (it accepts ‘other legitimate factors’), and pragmatic (it is sensitive to public demand). In other words, in the EU risk decision-making the rational, technocratic soul is matched by another soul, which is less systematic, less predictable, in short, more human. In our view, to be fully apprehended, the ‘hazard vs risk’ debate should be measured against this dual nature of EU risk regulation.

Keywords: Risk Regulation, EU law, precautionary principle, other legitimate factors, hazard

JEL Classification: I18, K23, K32, K42, L51, L66

Suggested Citation

Alemanno, Alberto, Risk vs. Hazard and the Two Souls of EU Risk Regulation: A Reply to Ragnar Löfstedt (July 30, 2011). European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 2, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1899273

Alberto Alemanno (Contact Author)

HEC Paris - Tax & Law ( email )

1 rue de la Libération
Jouy-en-Josas Cedex, 78351
France

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
218
Abstract Views
1,161
rank
139,224
PlumX Metrics