Policy Shock Recalibrating Risk and Regulation after Oil Spills, Nuclear Accidents and Financial Crises
Book contents
- Policy Shock
- Policy Shock
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
- Part II Case Studies on Offshore Oil Spills
- 7 From Santa Barbara to the Exxon Valdez
- 8 The Nordic Model of Offshore Oil Regulation
- 9 Reform in Real Time
- Part III Case Studies on Nuclear Accidents
- Part IV Case Studies of Financial Crises
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
8 - The Nordic Model of Offshore Oil Regulation
Managing Crises through a Proactive Regulator
from Part II - Case Studies on Offshore Oil Spills
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2017
Book contents
- Policy Shock
- Policy Shock
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
- Part II Case Studies on Offshore Oil Spills
- 7 From Santa Barbara to the Exxon Valdez
- 8 The Nordic Model of Offshore Oil Regulation
- 9 Reform in Real Time
- Part III Case Studies on Nuclear Accidents
- Part IV Case Studies of Financial Crises
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Policy ShockRecalibrating Risk and Regulation after Oil Spills, Nuclear Accidents and Financial Crises, pp. 151 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Bang, P. and Thuestad, O. (2014) Government-Enforce Self Regulation: The Norwegian Case in Lindøe, P., Baram, M., and Renn, O. (eds.), Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 243–73 .Google Scholar
Bennear, L. S. (2015) “Positive and Normative Analysis of Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling Regulations in the US, UK, and Norway,” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(1): 2–22.Google Scholar
Bieder, C. and Bourrier, M. (2013). Trapping Safety into Rules. How Desirable or Avoidable Is Proseduralization? Surrey, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
British Broadcast Company (BBC) n.d. “On This Day: 27 March 1980, North Sea Platform Collapses” available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/27/newsid_2531000/2531091.stm.Google Scholar
Engen, O. A (2009) The Norwegian Petroleum Innovation System A Historical Overview in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. and Verspagen, B. (eds.) Innovation, Path Dependency and Politics. Oxford University Press: Oxford: 179–207.Google Scholar
Engen, O. A (2014) Emergent Risk and New Technologies in Lindøe, P., Baram, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 340–59.Google Scholar
Engen, O. A., Langhelle, O., and Bratvold, R.. (2012) Is Norway Really Norway in Schaffer, B. and Ziyadov, T. (eds.) Beyond the Resource Curse. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia: 259–83.Google Scholar
Engen, O. A., Lindøe, P. H., and Hansen, K.. (2014) Power, Trust and Robustness-The Politicization of HSE in the Norwegian, Petroleum Regime, Paper at Working on Safety, Sept. 2014. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Gilad, S. (2010). “It Runs in the Family: Meta-Regulation and Its Siblings” Regulation and Governance (4): 485–506.Google Scholar
Hale, Andrew (2014). Advancing Robust Regulation in Lindøe, P., Baram, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 403–24.Google Scholar
Hood, C., Rothstein, H., and Baldwin, R. (2001). The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A. (2011). “Risk-Management and Rule Compliance: Decision-Making in Hazardous Industries” Safety Science 49: 110–20.Google Scholar
Hovden, J. (2003) The Development of New Safety Regulations in The Norwegian Oil and Gas Industry in Kirwan, B., Hale, A. R., and Hopkins, A. (eds.) Changing Regulation: Controlling Risks in Society. Oxford: Pergamon: 57–78.Google Scholar
Hovden, Jan (2004). “Public Policy and Administration in a Vulnerable Society: Regulatory Reforms Initiate by a Norwegian Commission.” Journal of Risk Research 7(6): 629–41.Google Scholar
House of Commons, Energy and Climate Change Committee. (2011). “UK Deepwater Drilling—Implications of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill ” London: The Stationery Office Limited. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/450/450i.pdf.Google Scholar
Kaasen, K (2014) Safety Regulation on the Norwegian Continental Shelf in Lindøe, P., Baram, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 103–31.Google Scholar
Lindøe, P. H., Baram, M., and Paterson, J. (2013) Robust Offshore Risk Regulation in Marchant, G., Abbot, K., and Allenby, B. (eds.) Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd: 235–53.Google Scholar
Lindøe, P., Baram, M., and Renn, O. (2014) Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindøe, P. and Engen, O. A. (2013) Offshore Safety Regimes – A Contested Terrain in Nordquist, M., More, J. N., Chircop, A., and Long, R. (eds.) The Regulation of Contental Shelf Development. Rethinking International Standards. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: 195–214.Google Scholar
Lindøe, P., Engen, O. A, and Olsen, O. E. (2011). “Reponses to Accidents in Different Industrial Sectors.” Safety Science 49: 90–97.Google Scholar
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1977. Ekofisk Bravo Oil Field Situation Report. Available at: http://incidentnews.noaa.gov/incident/6237/506648Google Scholar
Olsen, O. E. and Lindøe, P. H. (2009). “Risk on the Ramble: The International Transfer of Risk and Vulnerability.” Safety Science 47: 743–55.Google Scholar
Paté-Cornell, E. (1993) “Learning from the Piper Alpha Accident: A Postmortem Analysis of Technical and Organizational Factors” Risk Analysis, 32(11): 215.Google Scholar
Paterson, J. (2014) Health and Safety Regulation on the UK Continental Shelf. Evaluation and Future Prospects in Lindøe, P., Baram, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 132–53.Google Scholar
Petroleum Safety Authority of Norway. 2011. “The Deepwater Horizon Accident–Assessments and Recommendations for the Norwegian Petroleum Industry (English Summary).” Olso: Petroleum Safety Authority, Norway. www.ptil.no/getfile.php/PDF/DwH_PSA_summary.pdf.Google Scholar
Rosness, R. and Forseth, U. (2014) Boxing and Dancing: Tripartite Collaboration as an Integral Part of a Regulatory Regime in Lindøe, P., Baram, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 309–39.Google Scholar
Ryggvik, H. (2003) Fra forvitring til ny giv. Om en storulykke som aldri inntraff (From deterioration to a new beginning. A major accident that never happened). University of Oslo, TIK nr 26.Google Scholar
Ryggvik, H. and Smith Solbakken, M. (1997) Norsk Oljehistorie (Norwegian Oil History) Vol III. Oslo, Norway: Ad Notam Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Short, J. L. and Toffel, M. W. (2010). “Making Self-Regulation More Than Merely Symbolic: The Critical Role of the Legal Environment.” Administrative Science Quaterly 55: 361–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, D. (1997). “Self-Regulation Versus Command and Control? Beyond False Dichotomies.” Law and Policy 19(4): 529–59.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by