Risk analysis versus risk governance: the case study of the Ebola Virus Disease

Abstract

Abstract Risk notions mostly espoused by the world risk society and securitization theories have influenced the two major risk handling methods: risk analysis and risk governance. Engaging the risk notions, some scholars and policy makers have identified risk governance as superior to risk analysis. Risk analysis, considered the classical method, has technical parameters, leaving out important societal considerations. Risk governance, an emerging method, reaches beyond technical into societal parameters, so it is more holistic. This risk analysis-governance distinction prompts the question on what exactly risk governance adds to risk analysis. To answer the question, the article uses methodology and concepts in policy studies: qualitative methods, mainly a policy analysis of the 2013/2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak as a case study and synthesis of relevant bodies of literature, backed by secondary data from institutional and country sources; and the adaptive and integrative risk governance model of Klinke and Renn (2012) as a conceptual framework to guide the policy analysis. The claim is that, depending on the model, risk governance mainly adds components that incorporate multilevel and multistakeholder participation to enhance risk handling. The overall finding in support of this claim is that risk governance, as more entrenched in international risk handling, considerably allows both multistakeholder and multilevel participation under its components, while risk analysis, generally dominating national risk handling, does not allow substantial multistakeholder participation under its components, although it appears that it could considerably allow multilevel participation as well. Despite the additions of risk governance to risk analysis, as practiced, both methods fail to be as inclusive as possible, suggesting there is room for improvement to risk handling.