How states account for failure in Europe, Interview data

The UK team conducted 39 formal face to face interviews in the UK, 4 in France, 8 in Netherlands and 5 in Germany. In addition, we hosted 3 workshops in the UK, which brought together numerous senior regulators from the UK as well as the other three countries to discuss risk-based regulation.
HowSAFE undertook a comparative investigation of the factors shaping the adoption of risk-based approaches to governance across six policy domains: occupational health and safety, flooding, food-safety, healthcare, criminal justice and education - in four European countries-France, Germany, Netherlands and UK. In so doing, it: 1) documented the application of risk-based governance across policy domains and national settings; 2) compared the application of risk instruments within and between policy domains; 3) explained the factors driving and constraining risk-based governance in Europe, and will reflect more broadly on how states account for failure and the limits of governance.<p>‘Risk-based’ approaches to governance are increasingly internationally promoted as universally applicable foundations for improving the quality, efficiency, and rationality of governance across policy domains. Premised on the idea that governance cannot eliminate all adverse outcomes, risk-based approaches take into account both the probability as well as the impact of potential adverse governance outcomes. In so doing, such approaches provide a means of rationalising the limits of what governance interventions can, and should, achieve. However, such approaches embody particular understandings about the meaning of governance 'failure' and 'success' and as such can conflict with governance norms and accountability structures as well as societal expectations.</p>