Cost-Benefit Analysis versus the Precautionary Principle: Beyond Cass Sunstein’s Laws of Fear
AuthorMandel, Gregory N.
Gathii, James Thuo
SubjectLegal analysis and writing
Crimes against the state
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6362
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractPerhaps the quintessential role of government is to protect its citizens from threats of all types: war, global warming, terrorism, disease, toxic substances. This essay provides a review and cri-tique of Sunstein's innovative contribution to the lively debate over how government should perform this role, a debate that often pits cost-benefit analysis against the precautionary principle. The authors contend that Sunstein's critique of the precautionary prin-ciple has merit, but that his much-discussed Laws of Fear propos-als are deficient in several significant respects. Sunstein's pro-posals fail to solve problems related to cost-benefit analysis, implementation of deliberative democracy, and incorporation of social values into responses to threats. The essay concludes with a recommendation for reconceptualizing the precautionary prin-ciple in a manner that saves it from Sunstein's critiques.
CitationGregory N. Mandel & James Thuo Gathii, Cost-Benefit Analysis versus the Precautionary Principle: Beyond Cass Sunstein’s Laws of Fear, 2006 Univ. of Ill. L. Rev. 1037 (2006).
Available at: https://www.illinoislawreview.org/print/volume-2006-issue-5/