风险认知模式及其行政法制之意蕴

Risk Cognitive Models and Its Meaning to Administrative Legal Institutions

在风险社会背景下,专家风险认知模式和公众风险认知模式在风险本质、判断风险严重程度之因素和评价风险之方法等方面都存在较大分歧。两种认知模式的差异对规制风险的行政措施造成了许多负面影响。应当通过行政法律制度变革来避免这些消极后果,以便在科学和民主、事实和价值之间获得恰当平衡。这些改革措施包括:实行一种多中心的风险信息公开立法模式;制定并发布统一和完整的风险信息标准,定期加以评估和更新,最终形成一个"全国性的风险预警制度";进行有效的风险沟通,以便培育公众理性;依据各种定性因素对风险的严重程度加以调节;充分发挥国务院办公厅应急工作办事机构在风险教育、沟通和公开方面中的作用。

In a risk society, there exist important differences between the cognitive models of the public and experts in the essence, extent and estimating way of risk. The disagreements between the two cognitive models have negative influences on the administrative measures to regulate the risk. For example, the public and experts do not trust in each other, and sometimes the risk regulation measures promulgated by experts cannot be supported and cooperated, and are even opposed and obstructed by the public, thus these measures cannot be followed through effectively. Another example is that, the risk regulation measures cannot truly determine the priority of the risk regulation. The real problems that the administrative organs face due to the divergences between the two cognitive models include two aspects. Firstly, when the state is exposed to some affairs of low chance but high degree of hazard, the estimate of risk by the public will be influenced by their emotions, such as anxiety, panic and hatred, and they will use available heuristic way to assess the risk, thus will amplify the severity of the risk unduly. At this time, if the administrative organs carter to the requirement of the public and respond excessively, they will make a great mistake. Secondly, risk, especially rising from new technologies and activities, possesses the characteristic of uncertainty, so experts have more sufficient and scientific information than the public. However, if the administrative organs depend too much on the experts and do not consider the preference of the public, they will he opposed by the public. These negative outcomes should be avoided by the reformation of the administrative legal institutions, that is, to carry out a polycentrie legislative model of risk information publicity, to develop and publish unified and complete standards of risk information and to assess and update these standards periodically and finally to form a ＂nationwide risk warning institution＂, to execute risk communication effectively and to foster public reason, to adjust the severity of risk according to many qualitative factors, and to exert the functions of the Emergency Office of General Office of the State Council in risk education, risk communication and risk information publicity.