STS 214 Quiz 4

Scharipo & Glicksman argue that pragmatism recognizes and deals with the real world as it is, rather than relying on idealized or theoretical notions. In the context of risk regulation, pragmatic approaches acknowledge bounded rationality, which refers to the limitations of human decision-making and cognitive abilities. This means that people have cognitive constraints and are unable to fully process and analyze all available information when making decisions. Therefore, pragmatic risk regulation takes into account these limitations and adopts strategies that are realistic and feasible given the constraints of human cognition.

The correct answer is "risk regulation appears to have generated aggregate benefits in excess of aggregate costs." This means that the overall benefits of risk regulation outweigh the costs associated with it. Scharipo & Glicksman argue that while critics focus on the high costs of risk regulation, they fail to recognize the positive impact it has on society and the economy. The statement suggests that risk regulations have been effective in achieving their intended goals and have resulted in more benefits than drawbacks.

The correct answer states that the current risk regulation approach balances the interests of risk creators and risk bearers, but not in the manner indicated by economic theory. This suggests that while the approach does consider the interests of both parties, it does not align with the specific principles or guidelines outlined by economic theory.

The correct answer is that efforts to calculate the costs and benefits of regulation are often subject to substantial uncertainty because of bounded rationality. Bounded rationality refers to the limitations of human cognitive abilities to process and analyze information. In the context of calculating the costs and benefits of regulation, individuals may not have access to complete and accurate information, or they may have cognitive biases that affect their decision-making. This uncertainty makes it challenging to accurately estimate the costs and benefits of regulation, leading to potential inaccuracies in policy decisions.

According to Scharipo & Glicksman, the existing risk regulations make a large positive contribution to economic welfare in the aggregate. This means that these regulations have a significant and beneficial impact on the overall economic well-being. They are not imposing any substantial negative effects and instead, they are contributing positively to the economic welfare as a whole.

The given correct answer suggests that according to Scharipo & Glicksman, Congress has mostly rejected the implementation of a cost-benefit analysis test. This means that Congress has typically not prioritized or considered the potential costs and benefits associated with a particular policy or decision.

The correct answer is "these studies provide a dubious basis upon which to criticize the rationality of existing risk regulations." This answer suggests that the studies mentioned by Scharipo & Glicksman may not be reliable or trustworthy when it comes to criticizing the rationality of existing risk regulations. It implies that the studies may have flaws or biases that make their conclusions questionable.

Critics of current regulation favor a cost-benefit standard because they believe that market transactions are based on voluntary choices. This means that individuals willingly engage in these transactions and should therefore bear the responsibility for any associated risks or costs. By using a cost-benefit standard, these critics argue that regulation can be more efficient and effective in achieving its intended goals. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices in the market, even if it means accepting certain risks or costs.

The correct answer is "is more consistent with a pragmatic approach to the implementation of risk regulation." This means that according to Scharipo & Glicksman, a system of judicial oversight that gives agencies broader discretion is in line with a practical and realistic approach to implementing regulations regarding risk. This suggests that allowing agencies more flexibility in decision-making can be beneficial in effectively managing and addressing potential risks.

According to Scharipo & Glicksman, existing risk reduction legislation should reflect important relevant social norms and be formulated in light of bounded rationality. This means that regulations should take into account the values and beliefs of society and should be designed in a way that considers the limitations of human decision-making. By doing so, regulations can be more effective in addressing risks and ensuring the well-being of the public. Additionally, considering social norms and bounded rationality can help in gaining public acceptance and support for the regulations.

The correct answer, "endorses deference to the exercise of agency discretion," suggests that Scharipo & Glicksman support the idea that agencies should have the freedom to make decisions and exercise their discretion without excessive oversight. This approach implies that the expertise of agency professionals is trusted and that they are best equipped to regulate risks effectively. It does not reject agency discretion or fail to address it, but rather endorses and supports it.

When political oversight of regulatory agencies occurs, it means that the overseeing entity has the power to override the technical judgments made by the agency. This can be problematic because regulatory agencies are typically staffed with experts who possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. By disregarding their technical judgments, the overseeing entity may make decisions that are not based on sound scientific or technical evidence, potentially undermining the benefits that come from relying on agency expertise and judgment.

The use of "appropriation riders" in Congress represents legislative oversight at its worst. This means that the inclusion of appropriation riders in legislation is seen as a negative aspect of legislative oversight. It suggests that these riders are detrimental to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the legislative process, potentially hindering the ability of regulatory agencies to effectively analyze and make decisions.

Insistence on comprehensive analytical rationality by the overseeing entity can serve to mask the reviewing entity's own substantive biases. This means that when the overseeing entity emphasizes the need for thorough and logical analysis in regulatory decision-making, it can potentially hide any personal biases or preferences that the reviewing entity may have. In other words, the focus on rationality can be used as a way to disguise subjective opinions and maintain the appearance of objectivity in the regulatory process.

According to Scharipo & Glicksman, a purely economic approach to risk regulation would threaten widely held social goals. This suggests that solely focusing on economic factors when regulating risks would jeopardize the achievement of broader societal objectives. It implies that there are other important considerations, such as public health, environmental protection, and equity, that need to be taken into account in risk regulation to ensure the preservation of widely held social goals.