دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی دیدگاه سیاستمداران نسبت به ابزار نظارتی و ترانگاشت آن ها از خطرات محیطی - الزویر 2019

abstract

This study re-analysed 14 semi-structured interviews with policy officials from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to explore the use of a variety of regulatory instruments and different levels of risk across 14 policy domains and 18 separately named risks. Interviews took place within a policy environment of a better regulation agenda and of broader regulatory reform. Of 619 (n) coded references to 5 categories of regulatory instrument, ‘command and control’ regulation (n = 257) and support mechanisms (n = 118) dominated the discussions, with a preference for ‘command and control’ cited in 8 of the policy domains. A framing analysis revealed officials' views on instrument effectiveness, including for sub-categories of the 5 key instruments. Views were mixed, though notably positive for economic instruments including taxation, fiscal instruments and information provision. An overlap analysis explored officials' mapping of public environmental risks to instrument types suited to their management. While officials frequently cite risk concepts generally within discussions, the extent of overlap for risks of specific significance was low across all risks. Only ‘command and control’ was mapped to risks of moderate significance in likelihood and impact severity. These results show that policy makers still prefer ‘command and control’ approaches when a certainty of outcome is sought and that alternative means are sought for lower risk situations. The detailed reasons for selection, including the mapping of certain instruments to specific risk characteristics, is still developing.

Conclusions

We return to our aims: (a) how do policy officials perceive the effectiveness of existing or proposed interventions in reducing risk? (b) what place does risk reduction, as a desired policy outcome, play in instrument selection? (c) to what extent and how do policy officials connect with these aspects during instrument selection?. This is the first evaluation of policy officials' perspectives of instrument selection by reference to risk (see graphical abstract). Though modest in its scope, it appears policy officials possess a sound grounding in generic risk and economic concepts, perhaps through their training in formal policy appraisal within government and in cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, their understanding of conventional regulatory instruments is well grounded and furnished with occasional examples of alternatives, such as economic instruments, information-driven instruments and voluntary agreements. However, beyond the generalities of the need for risk reduction through ‘command and control’, there is a need to understand other factors that affect instrument choice and improve the connection between the significance and character of risks with instrument choice – not only in the Government department sponsoring policy development, but also through engagement with other government departments.