Risk Personalization: Governing Uncertain Collective Risk Through Individual Decisions
IF 1.9
Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Individuals are regularly made responsible for risks they wish to take: one can consent to processing of personal data, and decide what to buy based on risk information on product labels. However, both large ‐ scale processing of personal data and aggregated product choices may carry collective risks for society. In such situations, governance arrangements implying individual responsibility are at odds with uncertain collective risks from new technologies. We, therefore, investigate the governance challenges of what we call risk personalization: a form of governance for dealing with uncertain collective risks that allocates responsibility for governing those risks to individuals. We situate risk personalization at the intersection of two trends: governance of uncertain risk, and emphasis on individual responsibility. We then analyze three cases selected based on diversity: social media, nano materials, and Uber. Cross ‐ case comparison highlights issues of risk personalization pertaining to (i) the nature of the risk, (ii) governance arrangements in place, and (iii) mechanisms for allocating responsibility to individuals. We identify governance challenges in terms of (i) meaningful choice, (ii) effectiveness in mitigating risk, and (iii) collective decision making capacity. We conclude that the risk personalization lens stimulates reflection on the effectiveness and legitimacy of risk governance in light of individual agency.风险个性化:通过个体决策控制不确定的集体风险
个人通常要对自己想要承担的风险负责：可以同意处理个人数据，并根据产品标签上的风险信息决定购买什么。然而，大规模处理个人数据和综合产品选择都可能给社会带来集体风险。在这种情况下，意味着个人责任的治理安排与新技术带来的不确定的集体风险不一致。因此，我们调查了我们所说的风险个性化的治理挑战：一种处理不确定集体风险的治理形式，将治理这些风险的责任分配给个人。我们将风险个性化置于两种趋势的交叉点：对不确定风险的治理和对个人责任的强调。然后，我们分析了基于多样性选择的三个案例：社交媒体、纳米材料和优步。跨案例比较突出了与以下方面有关的风险个性化问题：（i）风险的性质，（ii）现有的治理安排，以及（iii）将责任分配给个人的机制。我们从（i）有意义的选择、（ii）降低风险的有效性和（iii）集体决策能力方面确定了治理挑战。我们得出的结论是，风险个性化视角激发了对风险治理的有效性和合法性的反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文
求助全文
来源期刊
Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
20
期刊介绍：
Scholarship on risk, hazards, and crises (emergencies, disasters, or public policy/organizational crises) has developed into mature and distinct fields of inquiry. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) addresses the governance implications of the important questions raised for the respective fields. The relationships between risk, hazards, and crisis raise fundamental questions with broad social science and policy implications. During unstable situations of acute or chronic danger and substantial uncertainty (i.e. a crisis), important and deeply rooted societal institutions, norms, and values come into play. The purpose of RHCPP is to provide a forum for research and commentary that examines societies’ understanding of and measures to address risk,hazards, and crises, how public policies do and should address these concerns, and to what effect. The journal is explicitly designed to encourage a broad range of perspectives by integrating work from a variety of disciplines. The journal will look at social science theory and policy design across the spectrum of risks and crises — including natural and technological hazards, public health crises, terrorism, and societal and environmental disasters. Papers will analyze the ways societies deal with both unpredictable and predictable events as public policy questions, which include topics such as crisis governance, loss and liability, emergency response, agenda setting, and the social and cultural contexts in which hazards, risks and crises are perceived and defined. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy invites dialogue and is open to new approaches. We seek scholarly work that combines academic quality with practical relevance. We especially welcome authors writing on the governance of risk and crises to submit their manuscripts.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
