Understanding risk governance: Introducing sociological neoinstitutionalism and foucauldian governmentality for further theorizing

Abstract

This article traces the career of risk across prominent theoretical approaches by highlighting their key assumptions and premises, specifically the technical approach found in the physical sciences, and economics, psychology, and sociology in the social sciences. In each discipline, the strengths and limitations of each theoretical approach are pointed out. The discussion focuses on sociology in particular because other approaches-in treating risks as dominantly technical, psychological, or economic phenomena-tend to downplay the broader historical and socio-political context that impinges on risk construction and production, and its differential impact across society. This exploration points out that institutions play an important role in creating, managing, and distributing risks in society. After highlighting the integrated risk governance framework as a nascent practice-oriented framework, the framework is examined theoretically using sociological neoinstitutionalism and Foucault's concept of governmentality. The conclusion elaborates the challenges of using these two bodies of knowledge to study risk governance of extreme events. Although Foucault's concept of governmentality corrects neoinstitutional theory's ambivalence toward power, more work needs to be done in order to reconcile their divergent intellectual commitments.

A Conceptual Governance Framework for Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction Integration

“…But the article affirms the proposition that governance is not a neutral and unproblematic exercise of technical analysis and calculated interventions (Lim 2011). In fact, governance has a ''Janus face'' (Swyngedouw 2005), which might divert the decision-making process from collective goals and benefits towards the legitimization of privileged actors which have ambiguous goals and priorities.…”

‘Walking on ice’: The future of parole in a risk-obsessed society

“…There is also a tension between the respective roles and responsibilities of the various professionals supervising high risk released prisoners in the community, roles which have various capacities for discretion in decision making (Lynch, 2000; Robinson and McNeill, 2004). Lim (2011: 17) highlights institutional attempts to both create and tame risk and that risk governance ‘serves particular interests’. The current, increasingly punitive and incapacitative strategies relating to the management of risk from parolees in the UK are a case in point.…”

Conceptualising Austerity in Scotland as a Risk Shift: Ideas and Implications

“…As cuts to the UK public sector and welfare reform combine to transfer responsibility for dealing with risk away from central government (Asenova, et al, 2013), other institutions, (e.g. regional government, local government, and community based), charities and informal collectives (familial or interest groups) are called upon to play an increasing role in managing and ameliorating risk (Lim, 2011). Some commentators argue that this entails an increasingly personalised responsibility for managing life's exigencies and greater individualisation of risk (Hamilton, 2014;Esping-Andersen, 1999).…”