The government of Risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes
Hood, Rothstein & Baldwin (2000)
Chapter 1: What are risk regimes? Why do they matter?
1.1 From risk society to variety in risk regulation regimes
The regulation of risk, defined as governmental interference with market or social processes to
control potential adverse consequences to health.
The idea of the ‘regulatory state’ is that a new institutional and policy style has emerged, in
which government's role as regulator advances while its role as a direct employer or property-
owner may decline through privatization and bureaucratic downsizing.
The two ideas of ‘risk society’ and ‘regulatory state’ could, indeed, be linked in so far as risk and
safety is often held to be one of the major drivers of contemporary regulatory growth, for
example in the development of EU regulation.
We want to find a way of describing, comparing, and explaining variety in riskregulation
regimes—a variety that is often observed by commentators, but rarely explored beyond the stage
of anecdote or first principles. Accordingly, we seek to describe how these regimes work—and
fail—and to examine and understand the forces shaping them.
1.2 The idea of Risk regulation Regimes
We use the term ‘regime’ to denote the complex of institutional geography, rules, practice, and
animating ideas that are associated with the regulation of a particular risk or hazard.
First, we see risk regulation regimes as systems. We view them as sets of interacting or at least
related parts rather than as ‘single-cell’ phenomena.
Second, we see risk regulation regimes as entities that have some degree of continuity over time.
Third, as with any system-based approach to organization, regimes are conceived as relatively
bounded systems that can be specified at different levels of breadth.
, 1.3 potential payoffs of a risk regulation regime perspective
Chapter 2: The comparative anatomy of risk regulation regimes
1 A basis comparison
We have already noted that regulatory ‘regimes’ are analytic constructs, not directly observable
entities.12 They can be conceived at different levels of breadth or generality and are also
potentially n-dimensional, capable in principle of being described at up to infinite levels of
complexity.
One dimension is the three components that form the basis of any control system:
- standard-setting
- information gathering
- behavior modification
A second basic dimension on which regulatory regimes can be compared comprises their
instrumental and institutional elements:
Hood, Rothstein & Baldwin (2000)
Chapter 1: What are risk regimes? Why do they matter?
1.1 From risk society to variety in risk regulation regimes
The regulation of risk, defined as governmental interference with market or social processes to
control potential adverse consequences to health.
The idea of the ‘regulatory state’ is that a new institutional and policy style has emerged, in
which government's role as regulator advances while its role as a direct employer or property-
owner may decline through privatization and bureaucratic downsizing.
The two ideas of ‘risk society’ and ‘regulatory state’ could, indeed, be linked in so far as risk and
safety is often held to be one of the major drivers of contemporary regulatory growth, for
example in the development of EU regulation.
We want to find a way of describing, comparing, and explaining variety in riskregulation
regimes—a variety that is often observed by commentators, but rarely explored beyond the stage
of anecdote or first principles. Accordingly, we seek to describe how these regimes work—and
fail—and to examine and understand the forces shaping them.
1.2 The idea of Risk regulation Regimes
We use the term ‘regime’ to denote the complex of institutional geography, rules, practice, and
animating ideas that are associated with the regulation of a particular risk or hazard.
First, we see risk regulation regimes as systems. We view them as sets of interacting or at least
related parts rather than as ‘single-cell’ phenomena.
Second, we see risk regulation regimes as entities that have some degree of continuity over time.
Third, as with any system-based approach to organization, regimes are conceived as relatively
bounded systems that can be specified at different levels of breadth.
, 1.3 potential payoffs of a risk regulation regime perspective
Chapter 2: The comparative anatomy of risk regulation regimes
1 A basis comparison
We have already noted that regulatory ‘regimes’ are analytic constructs, not directly observable
entities.12 They can be conceived at different levels of breadth or generality and are also
potentially n-dimensional, capable in principle of being described at up to infinite levels of
complexity.
One dimension is the three components that form the basis of any control system:
- standard-setting
- information gathering
- behavior modification
A second basic dimension on which regulatory regimes can be compared comprises their
instrumental and institutional elements:
