Of risk and pork

Urban security and the politics of objectivity

Andrew Lakoff, Eric Klinenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article focuses on the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) controversy as a case study in the politics of risk assessment. It examines struggles among diverse actors-think tank experts, journalists, politicians, and government officials-engaged in the contentious process of establishing a legitimate definition of risk. In the field of homeland security, the means of conducting rational risk assessment have not yet been settled, and entrepreneurial officials from urban and regional governments use different techniques to identify local risks and vulnerabilities. In this contentious process, federal bureaucrats are responsible for determining how to allocate resources fairly and rationally to different cities and metropolitan regions, given that local officials have clear incentives to request funds and little cause to refrain. Although "rationality" is supposed to replace "politics" in making bureaucratic decisions over the allocation of resources, what we find instead is a political struggle over how to define, measure, and manage risk. For political actors, victory in debates over urban security comes from codifying one's interests within the technical practice of risk assessment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)503-525
Number of pages23
JournalTheory and Society
Volume39
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

objectivity
risk assessment
politics
think tank
metropolitan region
political actor
Homelands
resources
journalist
rationality
politician
urban area
vulnerability
incentive
expert
decision making
cause
Objectivity
Risk Assessment
Government

Keywords

  • Homeland security
  • Objectivity
  • Rationality
  • Risk
  • Risk assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Of risk and pork : Urban security and the politics of objectivity. / Lakoff, Andrew; Klinenberg, Eric.

In: Theory and Society, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2010, p. 503-525.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e7e12b373bf04fae831faf8969b09055,
title = "Of risk and pork: Urban security and the politics of objectivity",
abstract = "This article focuses on the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) controversy as a case study in the politics of risk assessment. It examines struggles among diverse actors-think tank experts, journalists, politicians, and government officials-engaged in the contentious process of establishing a legitimate definition of risk. In the field of homeland security, the means of conducting rational risk assessment have not yet been settled, and entrepreneurial officials from urban and regional governments use different techniques to identify local risks and vulnerabilities. In this contentious process, federal bureaucrats are responsible for determining how to allocate resources fairly and rationally to different cities and metropolitan regions, given that local officials have clear incentives to request funds and little cause to refrain. Although {"}rationality{"} is supposed to replace {"}politics{"} in making bureaucratic decisions over the allocation of resources, what we find instead is a political struggle over how to define, measure, and manage risk. For political actors, victory in debates over urban security comes from codifying one's interests within the technical practice of risk assessment.",
keywords = "Homeland security, Objectivity, Rationality, Risk, Risk assessment",
author = "Andrew Lakoff and Eric Klinenberg",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1007/s11186-010-9123-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "503--525",
journal = "Theory and Society",
issn = "0304-2421",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Of risk and pork

T2 - Urban security and the politics of objectivity

AU - Lakoff, Andrew

AU - Klinenberg, Eric

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - This article focuses on the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) controversy as a case study in the politics of risk assessment. It examines struggles among diverse actors-think tank experts, journalists, politicians, and government officials-engaged in the contentious process of establishing a legitimate definition of risk. In the field of homeland security, the means of conducting rational risk assessment have not yet been settled, and entrepreneurial officials from urban and regional governments use different techniques to identify local risks and vulnerabilities. In this contentious process, federal bureaucrats are responsible for determining how to allocate resources fairly and rationally to different cities and metropolitan regions, given that local officials have clear incentives to request funds and little cause to refrain. Although "rationality" is supposed to replace "politics" in making bureaucratic decisions over the allocation of resources, what we find instead is a political struggle over how to define, measure, and manage risk. For political actors, victory in debates over urban security comes from codifying one's interests within the technical practice of risk assessment.

AB - This article focuses on the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) controversy as a case study in the politics of risk assessment. It examines struggles among diverse actors-think tank experts, journalists, politicians, and government officials-engaged in the contentious process of establishing a legitimate definition of risk. In the field of homeland security, the means of conducting rational risk assessment have not yet been settled, and entrepreneurial officials from urban and regional governments use different techniques to identify local risks and vulnerabilities. In this contentious process, federal bureaucrats are responsible for determining how to allocate resources fairly and rationally to different cities and metropolitan regions, given that local officials have clear incentives to request funds and little cause to refrain. Although "rationality" is supposed to replace "politics" in making bureaucratic decisions over the allocation of resources, what we find instead is a political struggle over how to define, measure, and manage risk. For political actors, victory in debates over urban security comes from codifying one's interests within the technical practice of risk assessment.

KW - Homeland security

KW - Objectivity

KW - Rationality

KW - Risk

KW - Risk assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955772123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955772123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11186-010-9123-3

DO - 10.1007/s11186-010-9123-3

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 503

EP - 525

JO - Theory and Society

JF - Theory and Society

SN - 0304-2421

IS - 5

ER -