The paper "Economic Precautionary Principle" is a perfect example of an assignment on macro and microeconomics. This is a strategy that was developed to cope with various types of risks where scientific knowledge is still not able to explain the effect of accepting or rejecting the risk. Such risks include the risks brought about by genetically modified organisms, systemic insecticides, and nanotechnology. Hence, the principal advocates for choosing a set of actions that significantly reduce the morally unacceptable harm involved and guarantees the most positive feedback. The morally unacceptable harm in the environment include actions that are harmful to the individual’ s life or health, cannot be reversed easily, do not consider equity in both the present and future generations or actions imposed without the consideration of the human rights of those directly affected. In employing the precautionary policies, a number of weaknesses are realized.
First, policymakers face a dilemma in trying to come up with the best precautionary policies due to the dynamism of the economy. A policy formed in order to avoid risks in one sector may end up creating a risk in a different sector. Secondly, regulations almost always end up creating new risk profiles rather than reducing the risk they were formulated to prevent.
Furthermore, the process of creating policies should be a low budget process compared to the implementation costs of the policy. This is especially important in the tradeoff between health and wealth. In addition, the formation of proper policies requires empirical data that is not readily available and is expensive to collect. However, channeling resources towards data collection means redirecting resources from other important sectors hence slowing down growth in the economy (Sandin 1999, pp.
902). This article, therefore, focuses on the weaknesses of formulating precautionary principles and the effect of these principles on different sectors of the economy (Sunstein 2005, pp. 2-6).
Arrow, KJ, Cropper, ML, Eads, GC, Hahn, RW, Lave, LB, Noll, RG, Portney, PR, Russell, M, Schmalensee, R, Smith, VK, Stavins, RN 1996, Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?, Science, no. 272, pp. 221-222.
Arrow, KJ & Fisher, A 1974, Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 312-319.
Choudhury, MA 1999, Comparative economic theory: occidental and Islamic perspectives, Kluwer, Boston.
Dolezalek, H 2012, The global financial crisis, viewed 5 April 2014, <,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=395033.>
Gehring, MW & Cordonier, MC 2005, Sustainable development in world trade law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague.
Graham, J & Hsia, S 2002, Europe’s precautionary principle: Promise and pitfalls, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 380-394.
Mclean, L 2010, The force: Living safely in a world of electromagnetic pollution, Scribe Publications, Carlton North.
Peel, J 2007, When (Scientific) rationality rules: (Mis)Application of the precautionary principle in Australian mobile phone tower cases, Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 103-120.
Peltzman, S 1973, An Evaluation of consumer protection legislation: The 1962 drug amendments, Journal of Political Economies, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 1049-91.
Sandin, P 1999, Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle, Human and Ecological. Journal of Risk Assessment, vol. 5, pp. 889-907.
Sunstein, CR 2005, The precautionary principle as a basis for decision making, The Economists’ Voice, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-9.
Wiener, JB 2002, Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe, Journal of Risk
Res, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 317-349.
Zhong, L 2000, Nuclear energy: China's approach towards addressing global warming, Georgetown. International Environmental Law Review, vol. 12, pp. 485-499.