tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post7225542297874135929..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Sunday Essay - communications, risk and reform wearinessJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-27140463244522208952012-05-20T21:58:51.732+10:002012-05-20T21:58:51.732+10:00I agree with both points, Winton. However, I have ...I agree with both points, Winton. However, I have also tried to make the point that where a decision imposes costs on some that benefit others there needs to be some measuring of and desirably some compensation for the costs to those affected. <br /><br />I recognise that this is a some what slippery concept. <br /><br />Dear Ramana is an interesting bloke. Having him in our loose group really adds. Look forward to your post.<br /><br />Evan, to my mind you have captured a very important point. That is just the way to go. Test expecting some failures really does work.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-91930913293226751412012-05-20T17:58:51.587+10:002012-05-20T17:58:51.587+10:00All true I think. I suppose the best way forward ...All true I think. I suppose the best way forward would be a series of small scale experiments some of which would fail. Perhaps this isn't done much because it lacks impressive" announceables" .Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355215688351759230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-34001614865652127742012-05-20T15:05:44.057+10:002012-05-20T15:05:44.057+10:00Jim, I agree with you that risk management has com...Jim, I agree with you that risk management has come to focus too heavily on risk avoidance because of concerns that a more balanced approach to risks would be too difficult to sell to the public. One effect of this is to provide an impetus to greater government regulation. Whenever anything bad happens – a person dies from food poisoning, a child is killed while crossing a road, a building firm becomes insolvent leaving subcontractors out of pocket, investment advisors steal money from clients, etc. - it is quite natural that the some members of the public will call for tighter regulations to ensure that nothing similar ever happens again. It is much easier for politicians to accede to these requests than to attempt to explain that the costs of tightening regulation further might exceed the benefits. Perhaps it might help to be able to refer such issues to a jury of citizens who could deliberate on the evidence at some distance from the pressures of the political process. (This is not a new idea, but I only heard about it a few months ago. I am planning to write about it on my blog soon.)<br />One point that might be worth considering - in the context of stability, change, reform fatigue etc. - is that change is a constant element of our environment – as we used to say in the IAC in the 1970s (although, unlike Ramana in the latest article on his blog - we borrowed the idea without giving the reference to Heroclitus). Sticking with an existing set of policies in the face of change in the environment (e.g. growth of the mining sector) can involve greater risks than some policy reform. Protecting some activities from change can impose greater change on other activities. The issue is often not so much about stability versus change, but what is the best way to adjust.Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com