Conflicting rationalities of risk: disputing risk in social policy – reflecting on 35 years of researching risk

Abstract

This article considers how the concept of risk has been variously defined and deployed within research and UK social policy since the 1980s. The article does not present an in-depth historical narrative, but rather presents key trends over this period. The article begins with a short review of policy and risk rationalities from the 1980s onwards with a specific focus on the research ‘discovery’ of the ‘rationality mistake’ by the early 1990s. A short case study from the author’s own research is then presented to illustrate the ‘rationality mistake’ in a particular arena of UK government policy on the management of sexual offenders. The paper concludes by briefly considering actual and potential developments in risk research and relevant recent theorising, and finally the likelihood of social policy understanding the risk subject more fully.

Keywords:

• rationality mistake
• risk and social policy
• risk subject

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a paper presented at ‘Risk and Uncertainty: ontologies and methods’. Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty ISA/ESA mid-term conference, 23–25 January, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. My thanks to Jens Zinn for encouragement to write this article and comments on earlier drafts; to Patrick Brown for the original invitation to present it as a conference paper and to the two anonymous reviewers for additional helpful comments.

Notes

1. SCARR brought together sociologists, psychologists, economists, social policy, media studies, socio-legal studies and law from 14 universities. In addition to focusing on the differences between everyday perceptions of risk and the objective risks identified by policymakers, the Network also focused on conceptual, analytical and methodological developments that would promote inter-disciplinary working across economics, psychology and sociology. For further information on the SCARR Network, see http://www.kent.ac.uk/scarr/; accessed 14 October 2013.

2. Ormrod (2013) provides an interesting challenge to Beck’s grand theory of risk through the use of three case studies: (1) the use of nuclear power in space; (2) the proliferation of space debris and (3) proposed space solutions to environmental problems.

3. The UK Coalition Government set up the ‘Behavioural Insights Team’ in 2010, often called the ‘Nudge Unit’ to apply ‘insights from academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services (http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/behavioural-insights-team; accessed 12 May 2014). The unit’s aims was to encourage and support people ‘to make better choices for themselves’. The unit initiated projects in boosting payment of court fines; responses to binge drinking; and recruitment of 100,000 people to carry organ donor cards. The unit was sold off to charity and employees in 2014.

4. This is not to dismiss the role of gender and race in both the construction and negotiation of risk. See, for example, Chan and Rigakos (2002) for a feminist critique of universal risk theorising, and for an important reminder of how women both experience and negotiate crime: risk, crime and gender. See also O’Malley (2009) for an analysis of the construction of African-American and Hispanic Americans as risk subjects of a ‘dangerous underclass’: ‘Risk, Crime and Prudentialism Revisited’.

5. ‘ “Sarah’s Law” pilots to be extended. Home Secretary says sex offender disclosure scheme has protected at least ten children.’ Available at: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/03/16/111,014/jacqui-smith-sarahs-law-pilots-to-be-extended.htm (accessed 15 October 2013).