| dc.description.abstract | The oil and gas industry has undoubtedly sparked one of the decade's most polarizing political debates: the debate over whether the economy or the environment should take precedence.
The liberal left wants rigorous risk regulations and supports decision-making that reflect this perspective. Meanwhile, the conservative right argues that the growing safety concern is a tad irrational and want economic benefits to outweigh the risk. This thesis aims to understand the way Norwegian political parties use risk terms in their political programs. Specifically, it investigates their risk attitudes and how that determines their preferred decision-making approach for the oil and gas industry. In this context, risk attitude is defined as the choice made by induvial or group in the face of a risky situation and is often affected by perceptual factors.
A qualitative research method was conducted with 10 risk terms. The analysis shows that the parties loosely use risk terms according to definitions and that there is a strong correlation between where they use loaded risk terms and their core values. The political parties on the left are risk-averse and tend to favor cautionary/ precautionary strategies. Whereas the parties on the right are more risk-seeking and prefer cost-benefit analysis.
These results suggest that the government need to carefully consider the opposing risk perspectives and make policies that reflect society’s value. On this basis, recommendations of how risk science can improve government policymaking are discussed and presented. | |