Regulatory Futures in Retrospect

In our 1998 volume ‘The Politics of Chemical Risk: Scenarios for a regulatory Future’ we envisioned four ideal typical scenarios for the future of European chemicals policies. The scenarios focused on the nature of expertise (seen either as a universal or a localised phenomenon) and the organisation of the boundary between science and policy (as either diverging or converging). The four scenarios were titled International Experts, European Risk Consultation, European Coordination of Assessment, and Europe as a Translator. For all four scenarios, we hypothesized internal dynamics and articulated dilemmas related to the development of the sciences contributing to chemical assessment, the relation between the EU and member states and the role of the public. In this contribution, we look back on our four scenarios fifteen years later, to see which ones have materialized and to explore whether the dilemmas we saw have indeed surfaced. We conclude that the International Experts scenario by and large has materialized and explore some of the underlying tensions and dynamics in this development

Beyond shareholder primacy? Reflections on the trajectory of UK corporate governance.

Core institutions of UK corporate governance, in particular the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, the Combined Code on Corporate Governance and the law on directors’ duties, are strongly orientated towards the norm of shareholder primacy. Beyond the core, however, stakeholder interests are better represented, in particular at the intersection of insolvency and employment law. This reflects the influence of European Community laws on information and consultation of employees. In addition, there are signs that some institutional shareholders are redirecting their investment strategies, under government encouragement, away from a focus on short-term returns, in such a way as to favour stakeholder-inclusive practices by firms. On this basis we suggest that the UK system is currently in a state of flux and that the debate over shareholder primacy has not been concluded

Design for \u2759: 1834-1959 Quasquicentennial City of Bangor, Maine

A series of pamphlet, papers, and photographs revolving around the events to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the incorporation of Bangor as a city. A street-by-street guide and map for a tour of Bangor\u27s points of interest are also included.https://digicom.bpl.lib.me.us/books_pubs/1244/thumbnail.jp

Don't know, can't know: Embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks

This article is available open access through the publisher’s website at the link below. Copyright @ 2011 The Royal Society.Numerous types of uncertainty arise when using formal models in the analysis of risks. Uncertainty is best seen as a relation, allowing a clear separation of the object, source and ‘owner’ of the uncertainty, and we argue that all expressions of uncertainty are constructed from judgements based on possibly inadequate assumptions, and are therefore contingent. We consider a five-level structure for assessing and communicating uncertainties, distinguishing three within-model levels—event, parameter and model uncertainty—and two extra-model levels concerning acknowledged and unknown inadequacies in the modelling process, including possible disagreements about the framing of the problem. We consider the forms of expression of uncertainty within the five levels, providing numerous examples of the way in which inadequacies in understanding are handled, and examining criticisms of the attempts taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to separate the likelihood of events from the confidence in the science. Expressing our confidence in the adequacy of the modelling process requires an assessment of the quality of the underlying evidence, and we draw on a scale that is widely used within evidence-based medicine. We conclude that the contingent nature of risk-modelling needs to be explicitly acknowledged in advice given to policy-makers, and that unconditional expressions of uncertainty remain an aspiration

Embedding the concept of ecosystems services:The utilisation of ecological knowledge in different policy venues

The concept of ecosystem services is increasingly being promoted by academics and policy makers as a means to protect ecological systems through more informed decision making. A basic premise of this approach is that strengthening the ecological knowledge base will significantly enhance ecosystem health through more sensitive decision making. However, the existing literature on knowledge utilisation, and many previous attempts to improve decision making through better knowledge integration, suggest that producing ‘more knowledge’ is only ever a necessary but insufficient condition for greater policy success. We begin this paper by reviewing what is already known about the relationship between ecological knowledge development and utilisation, before introducing a set of theme issue papers that examine—for the very first time—how this politically and scientifically salient relationship plays out across a number of vital policy venues such as land-use planning, policy-level impact assessment, and cost–benefit analysis. Following a detailed synthesis of the key findings of all the papers, this paper identifies and explores new research and policy challenges in this important and dynamic area of environmental governance

Proceedings: November 15, 1962, Ambassador East Hotel, Chicago, Illinois

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_comm/1441/thumbnail.jp

The changing nature of labour regulation: the distinctiveness of the National Agreement for the Engineering Construction Industry

The article addresses the changing nature of labour regulation through analysis of the National Agreement for the Engineering Construction Industry, originating in 1981. It shows how multiple spatial regulatory scales, the changing coalitions of actors involved, employer and client engagement and labour agency have been critical to National Agreement for the Engineering Construction Industry's survival