Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regulation in Europe is currently driven by three distinct, yet not entirely unrelated factors. These are competitiveness, sustainable development and governance. Increasingly these factors influence both the need for, and concepts of, what the European Commission (the Commission) refers to as “better regulation.” To ensure better regulation, two regulatory philosophies have been put forward, namely the precautionary principle and impact assessment.1,2 In this paper, I first briefly describe the current drivers of better regulation. Then I examine the use of these two regulatory philosophies in helping to achieve better regulation. In the final section I offer some speculations on the future development of European Union (EU) regulation. Will elements of the Commission and the EU member states operate in an even more precautionary environment, or will the implementation of the precautionary principle be seen as too costly, forcing regulators to resort to an even greater use of impact analysis?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey, P.D., G. Haq, and A. Gouldson. (2002). “Mind the Gap! Comparing ex Ante and ex Post Assessments of the Costs of Complying with Environmental Regulation,” European Environment 12, 245-256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R. and M. Cave. (1999). Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Better Regulation Unit. (1997). “Regulatory Compliance Cost Assessment: UK Experience.” In OECD (ed.), Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994). “The Precautionary Principle in Germany-Enabling Government.” In T. O'Riordan and J. Cameron (eds.), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, S. and J. Skea. (1991). Acid Politics. London: Belhaven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bomberg, E. (1998). Green Parties and Politics in the European Union. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, S. and V. Heyvaert. (2000). “Institutions for Regulating Risk.” In R.L. Revesz, P. Sands, and R.B. Stewart (eds.), Environmental Law, The Economy and Sustainable Development: The United States, the European Union and the International Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cini, M. (1997). “Administrative Culture in the European Commission: The Case of Competition and Environment.” In N. Nugent (ed.), At the Heart of the Union. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K. and D. Earnshaw. (1993). “The Implementation and Enforcement of European Community Environment Legislation.” In D. Judge (ed.), A Green Dimension for the European Community: Political Issues and Processes. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossick, S. (2002). Director of the European Policy Centre. “Speech Given at the Dialogue on Better Regulation,” 14th November, Renaissance Hotel, Brussels.

  • Dehousse, R. (1997). “Regulation by Networks in the European Community: The Role of European Agencies,” Journal of European Public Policy 4(2), 246-261.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, O., N. Lebessis, and J. Paterson. (2001). Governance in the European Union. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deregulation Unit. (1996). Checking the Cost of Regulation: A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dombey, D. (2002). “Chemical Control Leads to Rift in Brussels,” Financial Times 6 November, 7.

  • Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. (1995). Business Effects Test Checklist and Notes—Effects of Draft Legislation. Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edqvist, L.E and K.B. Pedersen. (2001). “Antimicrobials as Growth Promoters: Resistance to Common Sense.” In European Environment Agency (eds.), Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1990). Communication from The Commission: Industrial Policy in an Open and Competitive Environment: Guidelines for a Community Approach. Brussels: European Commission (COM 1990 556 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1993a). Towards Sustainability: Fifth Environmental Action Programme. Brussels: European Commission (COM 1993 465 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1993b). White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward Into the 21st Century. Brussels: European Commission (COM 1993 700 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1994). Communication from the Commission: An Industrial Competitiveness Policy for the European Union. Brussels: European Commission (COM 1994 319 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1995). Report of the Group of Independent Experts on Legislative and Administrative Simplification. Brussels: European Commission (COM 1995 288 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1996). Implementing Community Environmental Law. Brussels: European Commission (COM 1996 500 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1999). Communication from the Commission: The Competitiveness of European Enterprises in the Face of Globalisation-How Can it be Encouraged. Brussels: European Commission (COM 1998 718 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2000a). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2000 1 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2000b). Reforming the Commission: Consultative Document—Communication from Mr. Kinnock in Agreement with the President and Ms. Schreyer CG32000 1/17 18 January. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2000c). Communication from the Commission: Shaping the New Europe. Brussels: European Commission (COM 154 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001a). Commission from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament. Ten Years after Rio: Preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 53 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001b). Communication from the Commission: Realising the EU's Potential: Consolidating and Extending the Lisbon Strategy. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 79 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001c). Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 88 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001d). Interim Report from the Commission to the Stockholm European Council: Improving and Simplifying the Regulatory Environment. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 130 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001e). Communication from the Commission. A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 264).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001f). European Governance-A White Paper. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 428 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001g). Communication from the Commission: Simplifying and Improving the Regulatory Environment. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 726).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002a). Communication from the Commission: Productivity: The Key to Competitiveness of the European Economies and Enterprises. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 262 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002b). Communication from the Commission. European Governance: Better Lawmaking. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 275 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002c). Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 276 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002d). Communication from the Commission. Consultation Document: Towards a Reinforced Culture of Consultation and Dialogue—Proposal for General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 277 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002e). Communication from the Commission: Action Plan “Simplifying and Improving the Regulatory Environment.” Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 278 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002f). Directive of the European Parliament and the Council: Amending Directive 94/35/EC on Sweeteners for Use in Foodstuffs. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 375 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002g). Communication from the Commission: Environmental Agreements at the Community Level Within the Framework of the Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory Environment. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 412 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002h). Communication from the Commission: The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2003. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 590 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002i). Communication from the Commission: Toward a Reinforced Culture of Consultation and Dialogue—General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 704 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002j). Report from the Commission on European Governance. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 705 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002k). Communication from the Commission: On the Collection and Use of Expertise by the Commission: Principles and Guidelines. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 713 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002l). Communication from the Commission: Industrial Policy in an Enlarged Europe. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 714 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002m). Communication from the Commission: The Operating Framework for the European Regulatory Agencies. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 718 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003a). Communication from the Commission: Choosing to Grow: Knowledge, Innovation and Jobs in a Cohesive Society. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2003 5 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003b). Green Paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2003 27 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003c). Communication from the Commission: Developing an Action Plan for Environmental Technology. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2003 131 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003d). Communication from the Commission: Integrated Product Policy: Building on Environmental Life Cycle Thinking. Brussels: European Commission (COM 2003 302 Final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003e). Consultation Document, Volume 1 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals (REACH). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce. (2002). Response to the European Commission Consultation Document COM 2002 277. Brussels: The EU Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (1996). Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Brussels: European Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of First Instance. (2002). Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union-11 September. Hague: European Court of First Instance.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency. (2001). Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Bureau. (2002). EEB's Response to the Communication from the Commission Com 2002 277 Final. Brussels: EEB.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Policy Centre. (2001). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Improving the Quality of EU Regulatory Activity. Brussels: European Policy Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbrother, A. and R.S. Bennett, (1999). “Ecological Risk Assessment and the Precautionary Principle,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5, 943-949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firn, D. and V. Houlder. (2003). “EU Chemical Plan 'Could Sell 69billion Euros in Health Costs,” Financial Times, 15th July, p. 11.

  • Fischer, K. and J. Schot. (eds.) (1993). Environmental Strategies for Industry, International Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications. Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollier, C. and N. Treich. (2003). “Decision-Making Under Scientific Uncertainty: The Economics of the Precautionary Principle,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1), 77-103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golub, J. (1998). Global Competition and EU Environmental Policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. (2002). Administrator, The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget in the White House. Speech Given at the Dialogue on Better Regulation, 14th November, Renaissance Hotel, Brussels.

  • Graham, J.D. and S. Hsia. (2002). “Europe's Precautionary Principle: Promise and Pitfalls,” Journal of Risk Research 5(4), 371-390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, W., D. Matthews, and P. Newell. (2000). The Effectiveness of European Union Environmental Policy. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritier, A., C. Knill, and S. Mingers. (1996). Ringing the Changes in Europe: Regulatory Competition and Redefinition of the State, Britain, France, and Germany. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, E. (1991). “The Precautionary Approach: Implications of the Revision of the Oslo and Paris Conventions,” Marine Policy 15, 244-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. (1998). “Environmental Policy at 25: The Politics of Multinational Governance,” Environment 40, 14-20, 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. (1999). “The Implementation of EU Environmental Policy: A Policy Problem Without a Political Solution,” Environment and Planning C 17(1), 69-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. and T. O'Riordan. (1999). “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Policy and Politics.” In C. Raffensberger and J. Tickner (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, D. (1992). “Predestined to Save the Earth: The Environment Committee of the European Parliament,” Journal of Environmental Politics 1(4), 186-212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R.A. (1991). “Adversarial Legalism and American Government,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10, 369-406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, M., M.J. Roberts, and S.R. Thomas. (1994). The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions from Nixon to Clinton. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebessis, N. and J. Paterson. (2001). “Developing New Modes of Governance.” In O. De Schutter, N. Lebessis, and J. Paterson (eds.), Governance in the European Union. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liefferink, D. and M.S. Andersen. (1998). “Strategies of the “Green” Member States in the EU Environmental Policy Making,” Journal of European Public Policy 5(2), 254-270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R.E. (2001). “Risk and Regulation: Boat Owners' Perceptions of Recent Antifouling Legislation,” Risk Management: An International Journal 3, 33-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R.E. (2003a). “The Precautionary Principle: Risk, Regulation and Politics,” Trans IchemE 81 (part B), 1-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R.E. (2003b). “Swedish Chemical Regulation:An Overview and Analysis,” Risk Analysis 23(2), 411-421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, Fischhoff B. and I. Fischhoff. (2002). “Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified organisms,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(3), 381-407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R.E. and D. Vogel. (2001). “The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States,” Risk Analysis 21(3), 399-405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, D and D. Vogel. (2000). “Apples and Oranges: Comparing the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in Europe and the United States,” Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 31st August–3rd September.

  • Majone, G. (1996). Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (2002). “What Price Safety? The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications,” Journal of Common Market Studies 40(1), 89-109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. and M. Everson. (2001). “Institutional Reform: Independent Agencies, Oversight, Coordination and Procedural Control.” In O. De Schutter, N. Lebessis, and J. Paterson (eds.), Governance in the European Union. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation. (2001). Final Report. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazey, S. and J. Richardson. (1992). “Environmental Groups and the EC: Challenges and Opportunities,” Journal of Environmental Politics 1(4), 109-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, J. (2001). Environmental Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, O. and T. Mosedale. (1997). “The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law,” Journal of Environmental Law 9, 221-241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morall III, J.F. (1997). “An Assessment of the US Regulatory Impact Assessment Programme.” In OECD (ed.), Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. (2000). Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1992). Environmental Performance Reviews: Germany. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1995). Recommendation on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1997). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Governance for Sustainable Development: Five OECD Case Studies. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Riordan, T. and J. Cameron. (1994). Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Riordan, T., J. Cameron, and A. Jordan. (2001). Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantelouri, A. and S.A. Binns. (2001). Report of Working Group 2c Better Regulation to the White Paper on European Governance Work Area n.2, Handling the Process of Producing and Implementing Community Rules. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, T. (2002). Senior Official in the Secretary General's Office of the European Commission. Speech given at the Dialogue on Better Regulation, 14th November, Renaissance Hotel, Brussels.

  • Porter, M.E. (1998). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. and C. van der Linde. (1995). “Towards a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4), 97-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. and D. Levine. (1991). “Credibility and Trust in Risk Communication.” In R.E. Kasperson and P.J. Stallen (eds.), Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution. (1998). Setting Environmental Standards. London: The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sand, P.H. (2000). “The Precautionary Principle: A European Perspective,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6, 445-458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, P. (1999). “Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5, 889-907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sbragia, A. (1996). “Environmental Policy: The Push-Pull of Policy-Making.” In H. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds.), Policy Making in the European Union, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 235-255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F.W. (1988). “The Joint Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration,” Public Administration 66(3), 239-278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schörling, I. (2002). Comments Made at the European Policy Centre's Closing Conference-Better Regulation in the European Union. Brussels: EPC

    Google Scholar 

  • Schörling, I. (2003). “The Green Perspective on the EU Chemicals Regulation and the White Paper,” Risk Analysis 23(2), 405-409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnabel, R. (2002a). “A Win-Win Trans-Atlantic Game,” Wall Street Journal Europe, 6 June, p.A.10.

  • Schnabel, R. (2002b). “Preface.” In the EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce (eds.), Alternative Regulatory Models: Towards Better Regulation. Brussels: The EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southey, C. (1996). “Fischler Attacks UK for Scrapping Cull Deal,” Financial Times 24 September, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2003). “Beyond the Precautionary Principle,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151, 1003-1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweden's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2002). Swedish Comments on the Commission's Communication COM 2002 277. Stockholm: Sweden's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Department of Environment. (2002). June 6 Press release.

  • Swedish Government. (1969). Miljoskyddslagen (May 29). Stockholm: Swedish Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Government Bill. (1998). Svenska Miljomal: Miljopolitik for ett Hallbart Sverige (1997/1998:145). Stockholm: Fritzes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish National Audit Office. (1995). Section 14-Impact Assessment-Second Draft. Stockholm: Swedish National Audit Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNICE. (2002). UNICE's Response to the Communication from the Commission 2002 277 Final. Brussels: UNICE.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency. (1987). EPA's Use of Benefit Cost Analysis: 1981 to 1986. Washington: EPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Government. (2002). Comments of the United States Government on the European Commission's Better Regulation Package. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (1995). Trading Up. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (1997). Barriers or Benefits: Regulation in Transatlantic Trade. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2002). Risk Regulation in Europe and United States. Berkeley: Haas Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2003). “The New Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe,” British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming

  • Vos, E. (2003). “Agencies and the European Union.” In L. Verhey and T. Zwart (eds.), Agencies. Intersentia Publishing.

  • Wallström, M. (2002). “EU and US Approaches to Environment Policy.” Speech Given at the European Institute, Washington, DC, 25 April.

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weale, A. (1992). The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weale, A. (1993). “Ecological Modernisation and the Integration of European Environmental Policy.” In J.D. Liefferink, P.D. Lowe, and A.P.J. Mol (eds.), European Integration and Environmental Policy. London: Belhaven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weale, A., G. Pridham, A. Cini, Konstadakopulos, M.D. Porter, and B. Flynn. (2000). Environmental Governance in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidner, H. (1991). “Umweltpolitik: Auf altem Weg zu einer internationalen Spitzenstellung.” In W. Suss (ed.), Die Bundesrepublik in den achtziger Jahren. Innen Politik, Kultur, Aussenpolitik. Frankfurt: Opladen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg Group. (2003). A Quantitative Review of the Trends in Using the Precautionary Principle by Non-Governmental Organisations in the Context of European Regulatory Development. (Report prepared on behalf of the European Policy Centre, Brussels.) Brussels: European Policy Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund, S. (1975). Miljofarligverksamhet. Stockholm: Norstedts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund, S. (1981). “Legal Antipollution Standards in Sweden,” Scandinavian Studies in Law 25, 223-244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wey, K.G. (1993). Umweltpolitik in Deutschland. Opladen: Westdeutcher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J.B. (2002). “Precaution in a Multirisk World.” In D. Paustenbach (ed.), Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J.B. (2003). “Whose Precaution After All? A Comment on the Comparison and Evolution of Risk Regulatory Systems,” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 13, 202-257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J.B. and M. Rogers. (2002). “Comparing Precaution in the US and Europe,” Journal of Risk Research 5(4), 317-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E., K. MacDonald, and V. Kind. (2002). “Unravelling the Competitiveness Debate,” European Environment 12(5), 284-290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A.R. and H. Wallace. (2000). Regulatory Politics in the Enlarging European Union: Weighing Civic and Producer Interests. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zito, A.R. (1999). “Task Expansion: A Theoretical Overview,” Environment and Planning C 17(1), 19-35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King's Centre for Risk Management, International Policy Institute, King's College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Ragnar E. Löfstedt

Authors
  1. Ragnar E. Löfstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Löfstedt, R.E. The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Analysis. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28, 237–260 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000026097.72268.8d

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000026097.72268.8d

Search

Navigation