CARR-researchold-banner 1400x300

CARR Research 2005-2010

CARR became an ESRC-funded research centre in October 2000, building on core funding for a chair from the Michael Peacock Charitable Foundation. In its first five years, CARR provided a unique environment for interdisciplinary and comparative research by scholars of regulation and of risk management.

  • A wide ranging focus on the institutional settings for the regulation of risk;

  • A comparative focus on a variety of national contexts and cultures;

  • A comparative focus on overlapping 'risk-processing-domains' (eg, food, finance, environment, operations; organisation-wide risk management; the interaction of different risk regimes; and 'complex risk'). 

Risk regulation refers to the governance, accountability and processing of risks, both within organisations as part of their risk management and compliance functions, and also at the level of regulatory and other agencies that constitute 'risk regulation regimes'.

CARR's programme of work consists of a number of discrete projects, each of which will address one or more of three cross-cutting themes:

  • Performance, accountability and information

  • Knowledge, technology and expertise

  • Reputation, security and trust

It is envisaged that individual projects will address established risk regulation topics, for example discussion of state responses to risks and how one might explain variations in risk regimes; the influence of risk debates on regulatory policy; and trans-boundary risk regulation. They will, however, add a number of distinctive features to these established themes:

  • a concern with organisational risk management scholarship, a literature that is of growing relevance as risk management approaches are advocated by the government as a way of organising their public service activities;

  • consideration of regulation beyond the state - this embraces conceptualisations of regulation as de-centred from the state and focuses on the broadening participatory base for regulation and risk management practices.

  • a focus on the social and institutional character of risk management techniques, including quantitative methods and models.

More generally, CARR is committed to building theoretical and empirical linkages between studies of risk management and of regulatory processes, and to developing interdisciplinary studies at the intersection of management, sociology, organisation theory, economics, political science and law.

Additional information about research is available from LSE's Research and Project Development Division.


Prof Bridget Hutter


Business Risk Management: Managing Risks and Responding to Regulation

Bridget Hutter and Clive Jones

This project focuses on these important issues by examining the influence exercised by different government and non-government regulatory sources over business risk management. In particular, it draws on a detailed analysis of the risk management practices of food retail and hospitality businesses in the UK. The project's objectives are:

  • To investigate how business risk management practices may influence and be influenced by various sources of regulation. This includes those external to the business (for example, state regulators; the law; trade associations; shareholders; consultants; civil society organizations; insurance companies and consumers) and those internal to businesses (for example, Board directives, risk officers, union/employee representation and professional groups).
  • To examine how businesses manage risks, for example, the tools and techniques, knowledge and expertise employed to manage risk within the organization.
  • To analyze the institutional and policy changes resulting from external/internal influences and impact (if any) on the everyday practice of business organizations and the individuals working within them. This involves consideration of the pressures of compliance and non-compliance at each of these levels and how these relate to understandings of risk and uncertainty.

Project's outputs:

Hutter, Bridget M.; Jones, C. (2007) 'From government to governance: external influences on business risk management.' International Journal of Regulation and Governance 1, no. 1 (2007), pp. 27-45.

Hutter, Bridget M.; Jones, C. (2006) 'Business Risk Management Practices: The Influence of State Regulatory Agencies and Non-State Sources' CARR Discussion Paper Series No. 41

Hutter, B.M. and Jones, C. (2006) 'Managing Risks: Who Influences Businesses?' Environmental Health Scotland Vol 18, No. 2: 4-9

A monograph Business Risk Management: Managing Risks and Responding to Regulation in the Food Industry is currently being drafted.

Hutter, B.M. (2006) 'Managing Risks: Influence and Variation in then Food Industry'. Cullen Centre for Risk & Governance, Glasgow May 2006

Hutter, B.M. and Jones, C. (2006) 'From Government to Governance: External Influences on Business Risk Management'. LSA Annual Meeting Baltimore, July 2006

Hutter, B.M. (2006) 'Who Regulates Beyond the State?'. Politics Department and Centre for Regulatory Governance University of Exeter, Nov 2006

Risk based regulation

Risk based approaches to regulation have gained in popularity over the past 20 years. In the UK the Hampton Review (2005), commissioned by HM Treasury, placed risk based regulation at the centre of its recommendations for improving regulatory inspection and enforcement. It recommended 'entrenching the principle of risk assessment throughout the regulatory system, so that the burden of enforcement falls most on highest-risk businesses, and least on those with the best records of compliance' (2005: 8). The Report's recommendations on risk based regulation were fully endorsed by the Government and UK regulators were directed to adopt this approach (HMT, 2006).

This project explores the various meanings attaching to the term risk-based regulation. It is cautious about claiming universality and examines variations in the take up of risk based approaches according to domain and country. The advantages and limitations of the approach have been examined.

Project's outputs:

Lloyd-Bostock, S. and Hutter, B.M. (2008) 'Reforming regulation of the medical profession: the risks of risk-based approaches.' Health, Risk and Society 10, no. 1 pp. 69-83.

Hutter, B.M. (2005) 'The Attractions of Risk-based Regulation: Accounting for the Emergence of Risk Ideas in Regulation'. CARR Discussion Paper 33

Hutter, B.M. (2004) 'Risk Management and Governance' in Eliadis, P, Hill, MM and Howlett, M (eds.) Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press

Keynote address on 'Risk Management and Governance' at the Joint NPIA, ACPO and Home Office Research Conference on Managing Risk To Improve Policing in Birmingham, October 18th, 2007.

Presentation on 'What is risk based regulation?' to FOCA/EPFL workshop Risk-based regulation and certification: implications for the aviation sector, Magglingen, Switzerland, November 2006

Break Out Sessions on Risk, Risk Assessment and Risk-based Regulation organized, introduced and run by Prof Bridget Hutter. Better Regulation: The New Agenda - A Conference for Independent Regulators organized by BRTF and NAO, 2nd November 2005, Jolly Hotel St Ermins, Caxton Street, London.

Hutter, B.M. (2007) 'Risk Based Regulation: Some Myths, Risks & Dilemmas'. CARR Conference "Organising risk regulation: current dilemmas, future directions" March 2007, LSE.

Dr David Demortain


Genealogy and regulatory effects of risk analysis

This project seeks to improve our understanding of the trans-domain dimension of risk analysis. As a generic discipline, risk analysis has applications in fields as diverse as finance and food safety. However the particular techniques and designs employed in each field strongly vary, to the extent that risk analysis often appears to be a mere language to legitimise highly contextual practices.

The genealogy looks at the intellectual origins of risk analysis, tracing its manifestations in various domains as well as its links (or absence of links) with sister disciplines and concepts such as systems analysis, operations research, fault-tree analysis, cost-benefit analysis. It mainly uses semi-quantitative content analysis to that end, supplemented by readings and interviews with academics and scientists involved in these developments. It also uses archives of regulatory organisations which have formalised protocols and designs for risk analysis.

Controversies in regulatory science

This project aims to understand the dynamics of closure and un-bounding of regulatory sciences. Toxicology as a science was to a large extent constituted in response to demands of regulators for tools to evaluate and control chemicals (food additives, pesticides).

Research so far has not managed to explain how toxicology managed to constitute itself as a necessary regulatory discipline, how the "core-sets" (Jasanoff) or the epistemic community that produced its dominant methodologies and concepts, succeeded in turning those into a "core-battery" of tests and trials that every chemical should be submitted to. More importantly, research is now needed to understand how such stabilised body of knowledge gets questioned as new products emerge - biotechnologies mainly - as well as new tools for biological analysis (e.g. genomics and high-throughput-screening).

The project looks into this contemporary questioning of a regulatory science that had achieved closure and stability. The research is based on case-studies of the controversy surrounding the marketing of biotechnologies, such as MON863. It includes a historical study of the constitution of the profession of toxicology and of the emergence of new methodologies and technologies for the assay of biotechnologies and evaluation of their risks. It mobilises different qualitative methods such as interviews, content analysis and archival work.

Dr John Downer


Book project: "From Black Box to Check-Box: evaluating reliability in civil aircraft design."

I am writing a book about the 'type-certification' process, through which the Federal Aviation Administration evaluate and approve (or not) designs for new civil aircraft. In this book I draw on recent work in the sociology of technology to ask what it means to say that a future aircraft (or any complex technology) will be reliable to a figure of X [Where X is the likelihood of catastrophic failure over a given period]. Where does this number come from? How much faith should publics and policy-makers place in it?

Related Publications:

Downer, John (2007) "When the Chick Hits the Fan: Representativeness and Reproducibility in Technological Testing." in Social Studies of Science. Vol. 31 No.1 Feb. 2007 pp.7-26

Downer, John (2008) "On Evaluating One's Self: The implications of asymmetrical expertise in aviation regulation" in Risk & Regulation. October, 2008.

Downer, John (2009) "'When Failure Is an option: Redundancy, Reliability, and Risk." Forthcoming.

Ancillary Project: "What is Risk-Based Policy-making?"

This project has its roots in a period of academic consultancy, undertaken in late 2007 and early 2008 in the UK Department of Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra). The project looked at the meaning and potential implementation of risk-based policy-making. Together with Henry Rothstein from Kings College London, I spent nine months inside the department, interviewing people and looking at how policy decisions and practices could draw more explicitly on different notions of 'risk'.

Related publications:

Rothstein, Henry & Downer, John (2008) "Risk in Policy-making: Managing the risks of risk governance" Report to Defra, 2008

Downer, John & Rothstein, Henry (2008) "What is Risk-Based Policy-Making?: Heather & grass burning reform case-study." Report to Defra, 2008

Dr Sharon Gilad


Talking about Fairness: Regulation beyond Rules and Regulators

This project analyses the implementation of 'principles-based regulation'. It seeks to theorise how the deployment of principles (vs. detailed rules) shapes actors' participation in constructing the meaning of regulation. This question is analysed with regards to the process towards the implementation of the Financial Services Authority's Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) initiative, which is an ambitious attempt to use principles-based regulation to transform the culture of retail finance provision. Specific research questions explore how TCF shapes the following:


  • the FSA's interaction with firms
  • the participation in conversations about regulation within firms
  • firms' conversations about regulation with other firms
  • the participation of intermediaries - trading associations, consultants etc. - in conversations about regulation
  • the translation of principles into management technologies

Dr Jeanette Hofmann


Address space depletion on the Internet? - Framing risks as a form of transnational coordination

The general research question concerns the relationship between perceptions of risks, transnational coordination and subsequent institution building. Roughly 25 years after its inception, the Internet is still a new social realm with a low level of stable institutions and regulatory provisions. Particularly among those who were involved in the early development of the Internet, rules and regulations are commonly regarded as a double edged sword that does not only enable but also restricts action and potentially innovation. There is still a noticeable reservation towards formal types of coordination on the Internet. The research project aims to investigate:

  • how the problem of address space exhaustion is framed and approached by various actors,
  • which problem solving options are taken into account (and which are dismissed),
  • how various risks are described and weighed against each other,
  • who participates in the problem solving activities,
  • which sources of authority are invoked to achieve and perhaps implement a solution.

Project's outcome:

To date the Internet infrastructure attracts much more attention in the engineering departments than in the social sciences. There are only few researchers who study the management of the Internet's address system and domain name system. This project will be among the first studies on the Internet address system and probably the first one that investigates the pending transition to IPv6. The conceptual outcome of the project aims to contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of transnational institution building pertaining to the Internet.

The particular focus will be on the relationship between perceptions of risk and institution building. A potential starting point for studying the relationship between risk perceptions and institutions are the assumptions that "social organizations will emphasize those [risks] that reinforce the moral, political, or religious order that holds the group together" and that risk perceptions thus reflect "institutional procedures for allocating responsibility, for self-justification, or for calling others to account (Rayner 1992: 87; 92).

Professor Sally Lloyd Bostock


An analysis of data on registration and fitness to practice cases held by the GMC in the context of risk-based approaches to medical regulation

Funded by the ESRC within the Public Services Programme (Programme Director: Christopher Hood, Gladstone Professor of Government and Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. (

This is an exploratory project over one year, scheduled to end in February 2009. As risk-based approaches to regulation become increasingly popular, sources of potentially relevant data are being sought to meet the approaches' heavy information demands. The project's main objective is to assess data held by the General Medical Council (GMC) in the context of its potential value for informing and shaping regulatory activity. The GMC records basic registration information on individual doctors, and detailed information on 'fitness to practice' cases.

The project aims to clarify the nature of the information currently in the GMC's databases, and to ask what can be learnt from it, either on its own or in combination with other sources of information, for regulatory purposes beyond handling individual cases. What is the potential and what are the pitfalls in using this information for identifying and assessing risks?

Any information is a function of the processes whereby it has been generated, and information generated in one context for particular purposes can have important limitations in another context. The project therefore concentrates on the sources of the GMC's information, the purposes for which it is collected, its filtering and coding.

Dr Martin Lodge


  • Public Service Bargains (with Christopher Hood)
  • Network Regulation in the English-speaking Caribbean (with Lindsay Stirton), funded by the Association of Commonwealth Universities
  • Transposition of EU Directives
  • Modes of Control and Meat Inspections

Publication Projects

The Politics of Security of Supply Publication projects Oxford Handbook of Regulation (co-edited with Martin Cave and Robert Baldwin)

Other CARR-Funded Research 2005-2010

Andy Gouldson

Regulating Environmental Risks: Examining and Understanding the Variability of Regulatory Outcomes

Despite significant amounts of research on the emergence of institutions for global governance, the importance of policy learning, the diffusion of standards and the influence of different regulatory styles, there have been very few studies that seek to compare substantive regulatory outcomes.

Within the environmental sphere, although many have studied regulatory processes, few have studied regulatory outcomes. In the 1980s Vogel (1986) conducted comparative research on regulatory styles in the US and the UK. He suggested that although both countries had a significantly different regulatory style, they each achieved similar regulatory outcomes. However, the evidence to underpin this observation was limited, and since then there have been few if any comparative studies of the outcomes of environmental regulation.

The lack of evidence has not prevented many politicians and other commentators making claims that about comparative levels of environmental protection. Vig and Faure (2004) for example state that:

The US in recent years has been abandoning its historical role as a leaver in environmental regulation. At the same time, the European Union, spurred by political integration, has enacted many new environmental laws and assumed a leadership role in promoting global environmental sustainability.

Such statements and the assumptions that underpin them have been influential politically. The EU's Lisbon Agenda for example - and the subsequent focus of much of the EU's and the UK's better regulation debate - has been based on the view that the EU leads the world in environmental protection but that its competitiveness has been undermined as a consequence.

Given the significance of these political debates, it is important to examine the evidence and to test the assumptions that underpin them.

Christopher Hood

Managing Political and Reputational Risk in a High Blame Context

This project aims to further develop the methodology first applied in CARR Discussion Paper 42, 'Fighting Fires in Testing Times: Exploring a Staged Response Hypothesis for Blame Management in Two Exam Fiasco Cases' (Hood et al. 2007), for the analysis of blame management strategies by public officeholders, such as politicians or regulators, in response to media 'firestorms' concerning scandals, policy fiascos or regulatory failures.

Building upon analysis of blame firestorms in England and Scotland, this research analyzes cases from the United States, Ireland and Canada, comparing blame management strategies of top-rank politicians (the US President, Bill Clinton, the Irish Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern and the Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien) in response to scandals over public standards.

This research is to further develop our method for systematic analysis and comparison of the behaviour of officeholders facing blame, test the hypothesis that politicians will accept personal culpability only after other ways of handling blame have been exhausted, and consider the detectable impact of strategies on the next day's (media) blame level. As such, it examines the basic sequencing hypothesis of presentational strategies of officeholders (using survival or 'event history' analysis) and the relative effectiveness of those strategies for managing blame (using time series intervention analysis).

This project offers innovation in its development of an integrated theoretical and methodological approach for the analysis of public officeholders' management of political and reputational risk. In addition to time series intervention analysis (Box and Tiao 1975) used in our previous research, this will use survival analysis (e.g. Box-Steffensmeier and Jones 2004) to test the duration of time for which an officeholder persists with a particular presentational strategy, before retreating to a defensive strategy after previous strategies have become untenable. The selection of empirical cases from outside the UK is intended to enable comparative analysis (with a view to the addition of cases from non-Anglo-Saxon countries in future permutations of the research).

The research is relevant in particular to the CARR themes Performance, Accountability and Information and Reputation, Security and Trust. In a high blame context, with public demands for political accountability for under-performance, misconduct or failure, the sequencing and effectiveness of officeholders' management of political and reputational risk is a crucial dimension of performance of advanced capitalist democracies.

Michael Huber

Embracing Academic Risk

The study is exploratory in nature. Empirically it is mainly based on the collection of documents, both at the political and university level, and interviews with decision makers at regulatory agencies, persons relevant for the diffusion of risk management, as well as university administration and academic management. The documents comprise documented policy decisions, papers on the rationale for risk management in Higher Education (HE), responses and comments of stakeholders, studies carried out at the level of the HE system or single universities. These documents provide the core-information to reconstruct decision making at the political and organisational level. Interviews with relevant persons allow for a more complete collection of data and for some supplementary insights into the decision making processes.

As far as the political level is concerned, the data collection is restricted to the gathering documents and interviewing HEFCE officials. As far as universities are concerned, the risk management prescriptions of HEFCE indicate a diversified risk-appetite according to the academic quality of research and teaching. Therefore a selection of universities seems necessary to capture the span of risk management strategies from ignorance to enthusiasm. A first selection could be based on national ranking tables where three types of universities should be distinguished: (i) the internationally renowned university (top-10 in the national rankings of the Guardian or Times, e.g. Oxbridge, LSE)), the good national university (ranking between 20-35; e.g. Leeds, Manchester) and ordinary universities (bottom 20 of ranking, e.g. Greenwich, South Bank).1 These are just suggestions, to identify the relevant institutions; interviews at HEFCE will guide the grouping of the relevant institutions.

As far as the university level is concerned, it would not only be of interest to investigate the implementation of risk management, but also how and why universities oppose this management tool. For example, the University of Cambridge criticised the assessments carried out by the Quality Assessment Agency (QAA) as prone to failure, and even "alien to the character of the University and do carry pressures which could seriously damage the flexibility and diversity which is a particular strength of Cambridge; they would certainly be unprofitable for a University such as this" (Raban C. and Turner, E. (2003) Academic Risk. London HEFCE Report on Good Management Practice: 22). Light should be shed also on the refusal of risk management and under which circumstances this refusal proves successful.

The exploratory nature of the study concerns not only data collection, but also the development of a coherent and hopefully innovative theoretical framework. Even if there is a considerable body of literature on the entrepreneurial university, little analysis from a genuine sociological perspective has been developed. Even less literature is available on risk regulation in Higher Education and universities (e.g. King, R. (2006) Analysing the Higher Education Regulatory State. London: CARR Discussion paper 38). Hence, the empirical study may profit from CARRs expertise in the areas of risk-based regulation and risk organisation, as most of the scholars relevant for theoretical development in these areas are connected with or located at CARR. Thus, the Centre provides the optimal platform to discuss, develop and present this study. Moreover, it adds Higher Education to the selection of topics dealt with at CARR.

Liisa Kurunmäki

Performance, Accountability and Expertise: 'Payment by Results' as a New Risk Regulation Regime, 2008

This project extends an earlier one titled Performance, Accountability and Expertise: 'Payment by Results' as a New Risk Regulation Regime. The project retains the focus on Payment by Results (PbR), one of the most fundamental changes in NHS policy since the introduction of the 'internal market' in 1991. PbR represents the latest stage in a continuum of attempts to reform the NHS through accounting and, more specifically, costing. As a funding system, PbR promises to pay providers fairly and transparently by using a 'standard national tariff.' However, like all accounting based reforms, PbR encounters the range of professions and expertises active in the domain, and like all costing systems that give visibility where previously it was lacking, PbR creates new calculable spaces and new risks.

The main findings of the project to date are (Kurunmäki and Miller, 2008):

  1. PbR needs to be analysed not as a stand alone intervention, but as enmeshed within the inter-professional complex that emerges out of the interaction of different types of expertise. It is important to chart the nature of this inter-professional arena within which PbR operates. We have identified the multiple actors that are influential in the regulatory field of health service provision, and focused on three actors in particular: the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Monitor, and professional medical associations. We have analysed these three actors as representative of different types of expertise (schematically speaking, health economics, accounting and medicine).
  2. PbR, along with other regulatory interventions in the healthcare field such as those of NICE and Monitor, creates new and sometimes competing calculable spaces based on different entity assumptions. We emphasize the importance of being attentive to these different entity assumptions.
  3. Understanding the dynamics of PbR reform in the UK requires an analysis of the extent to which PbR creates new calculating selves, or a hybridizing of the calculating and medical self. The regulatory complex within which PbR operates may produce contradictory incentives and guidelines, and thereby contribute to an increase in systemic provision risks.

Until now, the project has focused on charting the multiple actors that are influential in the regulatory arena of health care. It has analysed the three interrelated sets of risks that this new regulatory regime has created: 'governance and financial risks', 'risks of gaming', and systemic 'provision risks'. Risks have been analysed both at the level of individual organisations that deliver health care, as well as at the level of the overall system of hospital provision.

Findings of this project have so far been published in an article (jointly with P. Miller) titled "Counting the Costs: The Risks of Regulating and Accounting for Healthcare Provision" (Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2008, pp. 9-21) and in an article (jointly with P. Miller and T. O'Leary) titled "Accounting, Hybrids and the Management of Risk" (Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33, No. 7-8, October-November 2008, pp. 942-967). The research findings have also been reported in the Winter 2007 issue of Risk&Regulation and they will be reported in the February 2009 issue of LSE Health Research Digest.

The extension of the project focuses on the theme of failure. Initial findings of this ongoing work have been published in a book chapter titled "Failing Organizations and Organizational Failures: The Case of Accounting and Health Care Regulation" in The Researcher and Developer of Accounting Thinking: 60th Anniversary of Professor Salme Näsi (eds. Hyvönen Timo & Laine Matias & Mäkelä Hannele, University of Tampere, Finland, December 2008). Further, the issue of failure in health care settings has been discussed in "Accounting for Failure" piece (jointly with A. Mennicken) published in the December 2008 issue of Risk&Regulation.

Javier Lezaun

The Joint Research Centre and the Technical Constitution of Europe

The research project described below consists in an in-depth study of the work of Joint Research Centre (JRC), the arm of the European Commission dedicated to providing technical and scientific support for the policies of the European Union. The key goal of this project is to explore and understand the epistemic and political dynamics of an organisation that is central to risk regulatory practices in Europe, and plays an essential role in the constitution of the European Union as technically homogenous political entity.

The Join Research Centre (JRC) is an odd organisation, a sort of hidden engine room of European policy-making and risk regulation. Created in 1958 under the Euratom Treaty to assist in the development of 'safe nuclear energy' across Europe, the JRC has since seen his remit and influence grow continuously, and is today the key reference centre for science and technology for the European Union. A recent review of JRC activities over the last decade, chaired by David King (former UK Chief Scientific Adviser) describes the JRC as 'an indispensable source of knowledge and expertise in support of the political agenda of the EU' (JRC, 2008). Today, the JRC comprises seven research institutes - Energy, Environment and Sustainability, Health & Consumer Protection, Prospective Technological Studies, Protection & Security of the Citizen, Reference Materials and Measurements, and Transuranium Elements) - three horizontal Directorates dedicated to the coordination of the institutes' activities, and a series of dedicated research facilities. Yet, despite the central role that the JRC plays across a range of EU policy domains, the organisation has received little if any attention from scholars in science policy, risk regulation, science and technology studies, or European governance.

Most importantly for the purposes of this study, in 1998 the JRC suffered an organisational overhaul and received a new mandate: 'to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of European Union policies'. This concept of 'customer-driven' expertise, and its relationship with the other key purpose of the JRC, the generation of 'robust science', has generated a great deal of wrangling in the JRC, and in European policy circles more generally (Nature, 2009). It is unclear how the direct and explicit mobilization of the JRC to the political goals of the Union has affected the standing and quality of its scientific research, but it has certainly made its expertise more central to the design and implementation of policy across the EU. Today, European policies and positions on a wide range of topics - from environmental sustainability to biotechnology, from nuclear safety to chemicals regulation - are underwritten by assessments, tools and inspections provided by the JRC.

Andrea Mennicken

Changing Accountability and Risk in the Management and Regulation of Security in the British Prison Service, 2008

Problematisations of traditional "command and control" regulation and the rise and spread of "New Public Management" reform agendas have brought new forms of public administration, with an increased participation of economic and scientific expertise. In this context particularly within the last ten years, increasing attention has been given by regulators and academics to what has come to be termed "risk-based regulation". To apply modern management thinking, a growing number of regulators across the UK, Australia and Canada have begun with the development of risk-based regulation schemes. This research project aims to investigate how concepts of risk and technologies of risk management have come to shape regulatory practices in the British Prison Service. The project pays particular attention to the impact of accounting and audit expertise in defining and operationalising ideas of risk-based regulation in British prison management.

The term risk-based regulation embraces a variety of different, sometimes conflicting, meanings and approaches. In broad terms, risk-based frameworks can be seen as an attempt to increase efficiency in the allocation of financial and human resources and further the development of cost-justified regulations. Risk-based regulation seeks to respond to regulatory problems in a manner proportionate to the risks that either regulators or regulated organisations identify. Emphasis is placed on systems of arm's length control, self-regulatory capacity and formalised performance management. It has stimulated the experimentation with mixed public-private organisation (e.g. sub-contracting services and market-testing) and a range of different calculative instruments (e.g. economic cost-benefit analyses, performance measurement systems, scientific risk assessment techniques and statistical risk profiling).

This project investigates how market-oriented concepts of risk and technologies of risk management have come to shape regulatory and management practices in the British Prison Service. In Britain, prisons have been at the forefront of market-oriented public sector reforms and risk-based regulation initiatives. Currently, there are 11 private prisons contractually managed by private companies in the UK. In April 2003, the Government introduced a "Benchmarking Programme", which requires both public and private prisons to undergo formalised performance and market tests on a regular basis. Within its finance division, the HM Prison Service has established a "corporate risk management framework". And at the level of day-to-day prison management, technologies of risk profiling have become widely used to govern prison populations. This research project seeks to unpack the various linkages that have become forged between managerial practices, techniques of risk and performance assessment, and concepts of crime, security and accountability. The project devotes particular attention to an analysis of the different rationalities, knowledges and bodies of professional expertise that have become involved in current prison management reforms and their effect on notions of accountability. It seeks to describe and explain in what ways, and to what extent, privatisation initiatives, financial accounting expertise and risk-based regulation tools challenge and redefine governmental accountability, ethical commitments and notions of punishment, crime and crime prevention. In so doing, the project aims to not only help enhance our understanding of economic and operational aspects of categories of risk, but also moral and political aspects.

Yuval Millo

Mapping the City: progress report for October 2007 - January 2008

The project is aimed at mapping the corporate and inter-personal connections, among UK corporations. The primary intention of the project is to provide a detailed empirical basis and an initial conceptual and methodological framework for analysing the current regulatory definitions and practices directed at corporate governance. The analytical scope of the research and the data collected are both broader those of typical studied in corporate governance. The research uses not only the connections formed between corporate boards through co-directorships (interlocking directorships), but also examines the personal histories of the directors, as well as those of other 'corporate experts' (accountants, financial advisors, lawyers) that form potential links among companies.

Data collected so far:

  • Interlocking directorships for FTSE All-Share companies (1998 - 2006)
  • Compensation given to corporate directors
  • Cross-ownerships among listed companies and between them and private comp.
  • Biographical data for executive and non-executive directors, auditors, financial advisors and legal counsellors of FTSE All-Share companies (1942 - present)

The first empirical analysis based on the mapping data examines the recent phenomenon of activist investors in UK quoted companies, the operating mechanism and the implications the trend has for the regulation of corporate governance. Active investors, as their name implies, try to take an active role in the strategic decision making of the companies in which they invest aiming to improve the performance of these companies. In doing so, and approaching companies' executive layer directly, active investors, in effect, challenge the regulatory logic behind corporate boards. The success of active investors also raises questions about the relationship between shareholders' size of holding and their degree of influence. Active investors with relatively small stakes in companies (often of the order of 10% or much less) have apparently been able to influence company boards to change their corporate strategy. One recent example is Trian, a US hedge fund, with a stake of 3% in the Cadbury Schweppes group, which has been able to influence changes in the group at a strategic level.

Initial findings coming from this research project indicate that active investors do not act individually but instead construct coalitions of shareholders through which they exert influence over the target company. Furthermore, the primary basis for such coalitions is rarely the shared ownership of the target company, but a variety of connections is used to build and maintain the coalitions. The findings tend to show that the existing regulatory framework, the one that focuses on dyadic company-company connections is limited. Instead, a system-wide examination of the connections among companies, independent investors and experts provides information that is more revealing and enables a more detailed analysis of contemporary UK corporate world.

Mark Thatcher

Report- CARR conference on Law, Expertise and Regulatory Politics 21-22 February 2008

The conference involved the presentations and discussion of papers concerning the interaction of law and expertise in regulatory politics, notably the decisions of non-elected regulators. It focused on how these organisations manage regulatory issues that involve different degrees and kinds of uncertainty, and especially how their institutional position, and expertise influence their role, outputs and accountability. It sought to analyse these organisations through the prism of two variables: the use of experts who claim technical or scientific knowledge; and the nature of law that governs the operation of NMIs To do so, it brought together academic from different disciplines (law, politics, sociology, science studies).

The following papers were presented:

  • Mark Thatcher (CARR and Department of Government, LSE) and Sweet Stone Sweet (Yale Law School and Political Science department)- Introductory Overview
  • Greg Shaffer (Loyola University Chicago School of Law)- Law, Expertise and the Regulation of GM Foods in the US and EU
  • Elizabeth Fisher (Corpus Christi College, Oxford)- A Lawyer's Perspective on Technological Risk, Expertise and Administration in the US and EU
  • Tim Sinclair (University of Warwick) The Politics of Creditworthiness in the European Union and the United States
  • Barry Barnes (Exeter), NMIs and Delegation in the Context of Biotechnology
  • Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard), Risk and Responsibility: A Changing Climate
  • Lukasz Gruszczynski (European University Institute, Florence)- Science and the Concept of Appropriate Level of Protection under WTO Law

There was lively discussion of several issues. One was the social construction of 'expertise'- how experts and expertise are defined, selected and then their expertise is used. There was also debate about how expertise legitimises decisions influenced by powerful interests and structures. The way in 'law' is in fact socially created was regarded as important. Equally, the value of independent and dependent variables in situations in which 'variables' are in fact socially constructed was discussed. The notion of independent regulatory agencies was subject to scrutiny, as certain regulatory, specially in the US, that are in fact seen as autonomous are not so legally, and vice versa for other regulators that are legally independent but not so in practice. In addition, the role of private bodies that in fact set standards causes difficulty for the concept. CARR's funding was essential for the conference which was truly multi-disciplinary (lawyers, political scientists, sociologists and science and technology studies) and international, both in terms of the origins of the participants and their empirical subject matter. The conference was also attended by several members of CARR and PhD students. It is hoped that there will be a second conference in Yale in 2009 to be followed by a publication.

Yally Avrahmpour and Paul Willman

Pension provision and the regulation of pensions have become a matter of both academic and policy interest. Private sector pension provision in particular raises issues about the ability of companies to sustain pension funding and about the role of shifting pension fund risk management practices on the evolution of capital markets. We are interested to investigate the role of corporate actors in pension provision and specifically the relationship between corporate actions and institutional factors internationally (Clark, 2000). Key questions are;

Do multinational companies calculate pension risk exposure?
How do companies respond to different regulatory regimes in pension provision?
Do pension risk considerations affect investment and operational decisions?
How are pension fund assets viewed in the context of financial strategy?
What are the governance mechanisms for pension funds and what is the relationship between stakeholder interest and pension policy?