Upload
oecd-governance
View
321
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by Prof. Martin, Lodge, London School of Economics, United Kingdom The workshop on “Learning from crises and fostering the continuous improvement of risk governance and management”, jointly organised with the governments of the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, was held in Oslo, Norway on 17-18 September 2014. More information is available at www.oecd.org/gov/risk/high-level-risk-forum-oslo-workshop-2014.htm
Citation preview
How can accountability measures contribute to more effective risk
governance processes? Martin Lodge
Menu
• Why promote accountability & transparency?
• Limitations
• Recipes
The rationale? • The ‘right to know’
• Accountability: the requirement to report to interested party on set standards [backed by sanctions]
• Transparency: making conduct, content and/or outcomes visible from the outside
• A&T as means:
• reduces information-gathering costs
• reduces behaviour-modification costs
Why problematic? • Earthquakes (http://www.geonet.org.nz)
• Terrorism (https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels.html)
• Radon: http://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps/englandwales
• Nuclear: http://www.rskonline.de/stellungnahmen---empfehlungen/index.htm
• Pandemics: http://www.ready.gov/pandemic
• Cyber: https://www.allianz-fuer-cybersicherheit.de/ACS/DE/Home/startseite.html
Why problematic?
• Are A&T in tension with requirements of (some) high-level risk governance systems? • Counter-learning
• Audit as questionable programmatic and technological idea
• Measurability – outcome and/or process
• Deterministic/probabilistic and ‘ignorance’
• Risk society
Standard recipes More overlap
Rely on non-standardised mechanisms (cross-sanctions/linkages)
Loss of trust
More bureaucracy
Impose more formal reporting & information revelation
requirements
Protocolisation & Juridification
More benchmarking Allow for comparative
performance assessment & incentives for behaviour
adjustment
Gaming
More professional conversation
Rely on ‘closed’ professional settings
Closure
Limits
• How avoid protocolisation and hierarchy (defensive risk management; senior officials/ministers held to account by junior officials in different ministries)
• How to reduce opportunities for gaming
• How to enhance external scrutiny
• How to sustain ‘trust’
A&T & learning
• External scrutiny & defensive risk management
• Learning as inherent conflict between confirmation and challenge
• Negative vs positive co-ordination in learning
Implications
• High-level risks span all kinds of bureaucratic activities (i.e. different degrees of measurability)
• ‘Trust’ and holding to account is inherently about world views - no universal agreement feasible as to what, how, and why