Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, 2012.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? (This question only has to be answered once for Vogel.)
3. What are the topics of the text?
This chapter focuses on stating several theories of why there is a difference in regulation between the EU and the USA, but explaining why those theories do not do well to explain why there was a polar shift between the two since 1990. The chapter concludes with a proposed explanation of why this shift may have occurred, namely that the USA populous has come to think that what has been done so far is “good enough”, and has lost the driving force behind the regulations that occurred from 1950 thru 1970.
4. What is the main argument of the text?
The main argument of this chapter is to say that there is not great difference in the government or system in place between the two regions, but that there is a cultural explanation as to why the regulations are not being enforced.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
The theories that the EU is just more risk adverse does not explain why until 1990 the EU had riskier regulations in place
The theories that companies in the EU and America have different levels they are willing to put up with is largely debunked by the fact that companies are largely international and that there is very little difference between EU and USA companies when it comes to resisting regulation.
The fact that a survey of the USA citizenry in 2010 revealing that almost half of the populous did not believe global warming to be that big of a deal, or rather, that it was over exaggerated, does well to prove that a change in culture from the era of the environmental movement is limiting the amount of regulation that is being introduced.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
“In each of these cases, what was different was not the actual risks themselves, but rather the public’s perception of them, which in turn helped shape differences in the extent and intensity of political demands to address them.” – pg 25
“While European firms have been more willing to accept regulations for greenhouse gases than have most American ones, this is not because they were economically advantaged by them.” – pg 29
“But a variable cannot be explained by a constant. Europe’s statist traditions and America’s long-standing hostility to “big government” and belief in “free enterprise” cannot explain why, for three decades, the United States consistently enacted more extensive and costly consumer and environmental regulations than did more European countries as well as the EU.”-pg 31
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
Does the “catch up” affect debunked in the beginning of the chapter need to be replaced with the theory of “one up-ing”?
Has the American citizenry simply found a steady state that it was aiming for since 1950, or are strong barriers to the cultural pushing power preventing the goals of the environmentalist movement era of regulation from reaching fruition?
In the next 50 years, will we see another shift as the USA tries to “one-up” the regulations of the EU in an attempt to prove supremacy in some sense of the word?
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
Followed up a wall street journal post, “European Imperialism” see annotation 2-2 Levy, David L.Newell. “Oceans Apart?” Environment 42, no. 9 (November 2000): 8.
Also followed up on this article, which discusses how the culture of businesses in America and Europe in regards to the climate and GMOs. The article concludes that although there are clear social-cultural, political-institutional, and corporate-strategic differences between the two areas, the trend is towards a convergence of goals and culture due to international business dominance.
THOMAS BERNAUER and LADINA CADUFF (2004). In Whose Interest? Pressure Group Politics, Economic Competition and Environmental Regulation. Journal of Public Policy, 24, pp 99-126. doi:DOI:10.1017/S0143814X04000054.
This article adds to the discussion of how political economists have developed bottom up explanations focusing on interest group politics and corporate behavior by internally developed public perceptions and by exploring the effects of corporate environmental performance strategies on policy.
- 1. Full citation.
Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, 2012.- 2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? (This question only has to be answered once for Vogel.)
- 3. What are the topics of the text?
This chapter focuses on stating several theories of why there is a difference in regulation between the EU and the USA, but explaining why those theories do not do well to explain why there was a polar shift between the two since 1990. The chapter concludes with a proposed explanation of why this shift may have occurred, namely that the USA populous has come to think that what has been done so far is “good enough”, and has lost the driving force behind the regulations that occurred from 1950 thru 1970.- 4. What is the main argument of the text?
The main argument of this chapter is to say that there is not great difference in the government or system in place between the two regions, but that there is a cultural explanation as to why the regulations are not being enforced.- 5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
The theories that the EU is just more risk adverse does not explain why until 1990 the EU had riskier regulations in placeThe theories that companies in the EU and America have different levels they are willing to put up with is largely debunked by the fact that companies are largely international and that there is very little difference between EU and USA companies when it comes to resisting regulation.
The fact that a survey of the USA citizenry in 2010 revealing that almost half of the populous did not believe global warming to be that big of a deal, or rather, that it was over exaggerated, does well to prove that a change in culture from the era of the environmental movement is limiting the amount of regulation that is being introduced.
- 6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
“In each of these cases, what was different was not the actual risks themselves, but rather the public’s perception of them, which in turn helped shape differences in the extent and intensity of political demands to address them.” – pg 25“While European firms have been more willing to accept regulations for greenhouse gases than have most American ones, this is not because they were economically advantaged by them.” – pg 29
“But a variable cannot be explained by a constant. Europe’s statist traditions and America’s long-standing hostility to “big government” and belief in “free enterprise” cannot explain why, for three decades, the United States consistently enacted more extensive and costly consumer and environmental regulations than did more European countries as well as the EU.”-pg 31
- 7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
Does the “catch up” affect debunked in the beginning of the chapter need to be replaced with the theory of “one up-ing”?Has the American citizenry simply found a steady state that it was aiming for since 1950, or are strong barriers to the cultural pushing power preventing the goals of the environmentalist movement era of regulation from reaching fruition?
In the next 50 years, will we see another shift as the USA tries to “one-up” the regulations of the EU in an attempt to prove supremacy in some sense of the word?
Followed up a wall street journal post, “European Imperialism” see annotation 2-2
Levy, David L.Newell. “Oceans Apart?” Environment 42, no. 9 (November 2000): 8.
Also followed up on this article, which discusses how the culture of businesses in America and Europe in regards to the climate and GMOs. The article concludes that although there are clear social-cultural, political-institutional, and corporate-strategic differences between the two areas, the trend is towards a convergence of goals and culture due to international business dominance.
THOMAS BERNAUER and LADINA CADUFF (2004). In Whose Interest? Pressure Group Politics, Economic Competition and Environmental Regulation. Journal of Public Policy, 24, pp 99-126. doi:DOI:10.1017/S0143814X04000054.
This article adds to the discussion of how political economists have developed bottom up explanations focusing on interest group politics and corporate behavior by internally developed public perceptions and by exploring the effects of corporate environmental performance strategies on policy.