ABSTRACT
Up until this point, we have focused on documenting features of the rational actor paradigm and explicating nature of its applications in the topical area of risk. Our purpose has been to convey an appreciation of how pervasive is this paradigm. The decision to draw upon the risk literature was not arbitrary. Managing risk represents a fundamental ontological challenge for modern societies, with immediate, often severe consequences for individuals and social systems alike. RAP, as the hallmark of over four hundred years of progressive Western thought in the social sciences, has been pervasively employed to reconcile risk problems produced by modern life. As demonstrated above, applying RAP to risk problems has required a significant amount of ingenuity and creativity. While some have attempted to apply RAP’s concepts and procedures in a more or less straightforward manner – for example Starr and Whipple (1980), Häfele (1990), Morgan (1990), Nordhaus (1994), Okrent (1996), Wigley et al (1996) – many others have recognized the need to make revisions or other adjustments to the paradigm. Although these variants preserve fundamental principles of RAP, they also point to limitations.
