STS 214 quiz 4 explores risk regulation, focusing on the balance between economic approaches and social goals, the impact of wealth on protection levels, and the principles of bounded rationality in existing legislation.
A purely economic approach to risk regulation should be mandatory
A purely economic approach to risk regulation is simply impossible
A purely economic approach to risk regulation would capture widely held social goals
A purely economic approach to risk regulation would threaten widely held social goals
Rate this question:
Balances the interests of risk creators and risk bearers, but not in the manner indicated by economic theory
Balances the interests of risk creators and risk bearers precisely as required by economic theory
Balances the interests of risk creators and risk bearers while simply ignoring costs
None of the above
Rate this question:
They regard market transactions as being based on voluntary choices
They do not care whether market transactions are voluntary or not
They believe that market transactions can never be voluntary
They believe the level of protection should be based on wealth
Rate this question:
Bounded rationality
Public irrationality
Political rationality
Economic rationality
Rate this question:
Never allow costs to exceed should
Reflect important relevant social norms and be formulated in light of bounded rationality
Never take costs into account when dealing with human health risks
Pay careful attention to political realitites
Rate this question:
High powered political interference
Resistance to government rules on the part of ordinary people
That they are often subject to substantial uncertainty because of bounded rationality
That costs are imposed immediately while benefits appear only later
Rate this question:
These studies provide a dubious basis upon which to criticize the rationality of existing risk regulations
These studies establish beyond doubt the high costs of existing regulations
These studies are too ambiguous to allow any conclusions to be drawn
None of the above
Rate this question:
Risk regulations have a purely political purpose
Risk regulations have had no actual impact on the economy
Risk regulation appears to have generated aggregate benefits in excess of aggregate costs
Risk regulations are actively supported by the industries subject to them
Rate this question:
Make a large positive contribution to economic welfare in the aggregate
Have no substantial impact, positive or negative
Imposed very hard to economic welfare in the aggregate
Make a small, but noticeable, contribution to economic welfare in the aggregate
Rate this question:
Reject entirely the notion of agency discretion
Trusts agency experts, thus eliminating the need for oversight
Endorses deference to the exercise of agency discretion
Fails to address the issue of agency discretion
Rate this question:
The overseeing entity overrides agency technical judgments
The overseeing entity overrides agency political judgments
The overseeing entity overrides agency economic benefits
The overseeing entity overrides agency bureaucratic procedures
Rate this question:
Will dramatically improve regulatory agency performance
Is perfectly compatible with a pragmatic approach to regulation
Can serve to mask the reviewing entity's own substantive biases
Is simply irrelevant in the real world
Rate this question:
Helps to overcome sloppy regulatory agency analysis
Represents legislative oversight at its worst
Allows for greater popular input into regulatory decision-making
Enhances the speed with which regulatory agencies issue their rules
Rate this question:
Is likely to produce regulatory abuses
Is more consistent with a pragmatic approach to the implementation of risk regulation
Is not consistent with a pragmatic approach to the implementation of risk regulation
Is unworkable
Rate this question:
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.