The sociological link between risk and responsibility: a critical review and a theoretical proposal

Sena, Barbara

doi:10.1111/issj.12066

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An individual, an institution, or an organization is responsible (or supposed to act responsibly) for a particular action towards a particular subject (Goodhart, 2017). This understanding requires the subjectivation of two or more actors (an individual or group), for it identifies actors' positionality in relation to one another and provides a basis for defining mutual expectations about possible behaviors (Sena, 2014). This idea of responsibility finds its institutional roots in the normative assumption that to be responsible means to be 'answerable' or 'accountable' for a particular action towards another subject (Bvens, 1998).…”

Section: Subjectivist and Collectivist Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility as a field: The circular economy of water, waste, and energy

Savini

Giezen

2020

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsibilities are a central matter of concern of environmental politics because they underpin regulatory frameworks of utility services. Yet, in scholarship concerned with sustainability transitions and governance, responsibility is reductively understood as a legal obligation or allotted task. Building on an institutionalist perspective, this paper conceptualized responsibility as a field of contention where actors negotiate, contest, and articulate what we define as subjectivist and collectivist responsibilities. Defining and using the concept of ‘fields of responsibility’, the paper analyzes how responsibilities (mis)match and contradict in controversial policymaking around the ‘circular economy’: a wide policy program for restructuring water, energy, and waste utility services and infrastructures in Amsterdam region. In so doing, it reveals the logic of contemporary environmental governance: in approaching climate targets, actors actively take on responsibilities while at the same time maintaining a conservative view of their role and responsibilities. We call these phenomena over-stretching and under-reaching.

show abstract

Section: Subjectivist and Collectivist Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility as a field: The circular economy of water, waste, and energy

Savini

Giezen

2020

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This understanding of responsibility is particularly important for planning and urban policy-making, because it allows to explain urban policy-making as a collective endeavour that emerges from a relation among individuals and stakeholders in particular contexts which may be previously institutionalised. In its relational sense, responsibility is thus an abstraction that originates from the purposive relation between actors but that ultimately transcends those same actors becoming institutionalised into rules, regulations and discourses (Sena, 2014). This occurs when (a) actors co-produce a frame that provides a certain degree of certainty on how other actors will act, (b) actors enter into a relation with each other and assume identities and positions in respect to other actors and (c) the process of attribution of positions involves some degree of agreement or disagreement (i.e.…”

Section: Operational Norms: Allocation and Sharing Of Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility, polity, value: The (un)changing norms of planning practices

Savini

2018

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address the social, spatial and environmental problems of cities, planners often promote and engage with spatial practices that are intended to be experimental, innovative or transformative of existent processes. Yet, the actual nature of the novelty of these practices is often not explicit nor problematised by their proponents. This article develops an institutionalist framework to better appreciate the variegated nature of change in planning practices. It understands planning as embedded in, and simultaneously impacting on, three types of institutionalised norms: operational norms that define and allocate responsibilities among actors, collective norms that (re)produce planning polities and constitute the spatial-temporal context of their actions and constitutional norms that substantiate the idea of value defining the eligible stakeholders of a particular process. The article mobilises this framework and argues that contemporary planning practices convey a (a) shifting of responsibility towards individuals and households, (b) disaggregation of city regions through polycentric localism and (c) the reproduction of the process of accumulative valorisation of land. The article concludes reflecting on the complexity institutional change.

show abstract

“…The responsibility for climate change and its mitigation could be divided into two different approaches: retrospective and prospective responsibility. The first one states, that someone must hold responsibility when damage is verified, the second says that -responsibility is supposed to be taken to prevent or impede the damage (Sena, 2014). The retrospective responsibility on climate change is clear.…”

Section: Public Perceptions Of Institutional Responsibility On Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is necessary to point out the need of voluntary participation of other actors in their own government (Sena, 2014). Without their engagement any kind of policies simply will not work, especially if the area covers environmental issues.…”

Section: Public Perceptions Of Institutional Responsibility On Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Public Perceptions of Institutional Responsibility in Climate Change Risk in Baltic Nordic Countries

Budžytė¹,

Balžekienė²

2018

JSSI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tackling climate change requires collective, cross-borders actions and local solutions for mitigation measures. Variety of actors are involved in climate change adaptation and mitigation, ranging from local communities to the global supranational institutions. People tend to perceive individual action as failing to cope with climate change (e.g. outlined in Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006) and therefore ascribe high responsibility to the institutional level. This article will analyze how the public in Baltic -Nordic countries perceive the institutional responsibilities in climate change adaptation and mitigation. This article is based on data of Special Eurobarometer (459), conducted in 2017 and the questions analyzed in this article are related to concerns about climate change and the perception of institutional responsibilities in tackling climate change (institutions: national governments, European Union, business and industry, regional and local authorities; and environmental groups). The local, national and global institutions are perceived as having different responsibilities and impacts in tackling climate change. Also, the perceptions of institutional and individual responsibility varies across the countries. Results indicate that climate change is perceived as one of the top three most serious global issues in Baltic -Nordic countries as well as the concern about climate change in those countries is increasing. Regarding public perceptions of institutional responsibility related to climate change risks, most people in EU member states indicate national governments as having highest responsibility. However, there are significant differences comparing the perception of public in Nordic and Baltic States.

show abstract

The sociological link between risk and responsibility: a critical review and a theoretical proposal

Cited by 6 publications

References 49 publications

Responsibility as a field: The circular economy of water, waste, and energy

Responsibility as a field: The circular economy of water, waste, and energy

Responsibility, polity, value: The (un)changing norms of planning practices

Public Perceptions of Institutional Responsibility in Climate Change Risk in Baltic Nordic Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About