How Should Governments Make Risky Policy Decisions

Bibliographic Data

ID11960428
AuthorsJ Brian Hardaker (0000-0002-6936-7105, corresponding author), Euan Fleming, Gudbrand Lien (0000-0003-3424-4401)
Year2009
Volume68
Issue3
Pages256-271
Publication date2009-08-24
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAustralian Journal of Public Administration (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0313-6647 • E-ISSN: 1467-8500
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00638.x
OpenAlexW2083773009
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited41

Public policy‐making does not follow the long‐established and well‐recognised principles of rational decision analysis under risk. Public views of risk are often inconsistent and seemingly irrational, and a gulf exists between risk perceptions and attitudes of the public and those of ‘experts’. On the other hand, experts often claim unjustifiably high levels of confidence in their predictions of policy choice outcomes, creating a lack of public faith in their recommendations. While risky policy choices deserve more systematic decision analysis, many challenges remain to effective implementation of such analyses. Among the suggestions for improvement that we offer is the need for more effective interaction between policy‐makers, decision analysts and the public

Actuarial science · Business · Economic growth · Economics · Epistemology · Faith · Irrational number · Perception · Policy analysis · Political science · Public economics · Public policy · Public relations · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Psychology · Public Administration · Risk Perception and Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub