This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Campbell, S. Articles by Currie, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Against Beck

In Defence of Risk Analysis

Greg Currie

University of Nottingham, UK

For more than 10 years, Ulrich Beck has dominated discussion of risk issues in the social sciences. We argue that Beck's criticisms of the theory and practise of risk analysis are groundless. His understanding of what risk is is badly flawed. His attempt to identify risk and risk perception fails. He misunderstands and distorts the use of probability in risk analysis. His comments about the insurance industry show that he does not understand some of the basics of that industry. And his assertions about the wrongness of allowing acceptable levels of exposure to toxic chemicals do not stand up to scrutiny.

Key Words: Beck • risk analysis • risk perception • probability • insurance

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 2, 149-172 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0048393106287209


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Gunder Ideologies of Certainty in a Risky Reality: Beyond the Hauntology of Planning Planning Theory, July 1, 2008; 7(2): 186 - 206. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Hamilton, S. Adolphs, and B. Nerlich The meanings of 'risk': a view from corpus linguistics Discourse Society, March 1, 2007; 18(2): 163 - 181. [Abstract] [PDF]