Convergence, Divergence, and Complexity in US and European Risk Regulation

Abstract

Resources for the Future National comparisons, whether of cuisine, driving habits, or law, are apt to provoke hurt feelings.The renewed interest of late in comparing US and European environmental policies has been spurred in part by a series of transatlantic conflicts --often rather acrimonious --over trade restrictions and international treaty language.The comparative studies themselves sometimes manifest unkind stereotyping.But there is much to be gained from comparative analyses, if they can be serious, respectful, and open-minded.Differences in regulatory policies can be the source of insight rather than discord.Our goal should be constructive dialogue and mutual learning.The current conventional wisdom is that US and European environmental policies have been diverging since the 1980s, with Europe adopting stringent regulations under the banner of the precautionary principle while the US focuses on regulatory reform.Evidence for this proposition includes more stringent European restrictions on hormones in beef and genetically modified foods, the adoption of the precautionary principle in the EU Treaty, the US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the emphasis by US Presidents on cost-benefit analysis of new regulations, the increasing influence of environmental organizations and parties in European regulatory politics, and the growing role of European institutions borne of European integration.These are clearly important developments, and European environmental policy is clearly evolving.I argue, however, that this picture is incomplete, and that the reality is much more dynamic and complex.Both the US and Europe have quite active environmental regulatory systems; the US has hardly ceased regulating.Both the US and Europe are often highly precautionary -and on several prominent examples, including particulate air pollution and mad cow disease in blood, it is the US that is regulating in the more precautionary manner.The US and Europe do not diverge as much as is claimed on the general use of precaution in regulation, but they often do diverge on the particular question of which risks to worry about and regulate most.This particularized divergence can give rise to visible conflicts.Moreover, convergence and divergence are both

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.