THE CONCEPT OF «RISK SOCIETY» WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL APPARATUS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34132/pard2025.28.05Keywords:
globalization, risk, risk society, post-industrial society, public administration.Abstract
The article explores the necessity for a theoretical and conceptual understanding of the concept of «risk society» as a category of public administration in the context of globalization. The processes of globalization exacerbate crises, intensify competition for access to limited and non-renewable resources, and create uncertainty, accelerating the emergence of new types of risks. Consequently, risk has become an integral feature of modern society, leading instability and transforming it into a high-risk society. It is highlighted that risks reduce the level of controllability in the country and at the same time increase the emergence of new risks and the likelihood of errors in government decision-making. In conditions of uncertainty, it is difficult to take into account the maximum number of emerging factors. It is noted that the continued existence and development of humanity depend on the identification and anticipation of risk situations, as well as the implementation of timely measures aimed at preventing them and minimize the negative consequences. It is emphasized that in the context of globalization-related risks, public administration bodies must seek innovative tools and mechanisms to ensure effective management of society. It has been established that in Ukraine, risks manifest in various forms in almost all sectors, they worsen public administration, prevent the authorities from solving economic and social problems in a timely manner. The government’s ineffective response to these risks provokes new risks and undermines public trust. This has drawn the scholar’s attention to interpreting the concept of «risk society» as a category of public administration, emphasizing decision-making processes aimed at risk minimization. This raises the question of understanding the substantive content of risk in relation to decision-making in public administration and recognizing it as a key category of public administration. Further research should focus on studying risks in modern society, particularly, in the context of strengthening the power of transnational companies, which have their own dynamics, whose activities reflect not only negative but also positive aspects.
References
Andriiash, V.I., & Yevtushenko, N.O. (2018). Poniattia «publichnoho upravlinnia» u vitchyznianomu naukovomu dyskursi [The concept of «public administration» in domestic scientific discourse]. Publichne upravlinnia ta rehionalnyi rozvytok – Public administration and regional development, 1, (pp. 51-65). Retrieved from: https://surl.li/ngglsg [in Ukrainian].
Balan, M.I. (2019). Suspilstvo ryzyku: destabilizatsiini mozhlyvosti [Risk society: destabilizing opportunities]. Derzhavne upravlinnia: udoskonalennia ta rozvytok – State administration: improvement and development, 2. Retrieved from: https://surl.li/kupfra [in Ukrainian].
Bilousov, O.S. (2016). Kontseptsiia «suspilstva ryzyku» v konteksti analizu suchasnoho hlobalnoho sotsiumu [The concept of «risk society» in the context of the analysis of modern global society]. Politykus – Politikus, 3, (pp. 32-36). Retrieved from: https://surl.li/hamgaw [in Ukrainian].
Hidens, E. (2004). Nestrymnyi svit: yak hlobalizatsiia peretvoriuie nashe zhyttia [The unstoppable world: how globalization transforms our lives]. (N. Polishchuk, Trans.). Kyiv: Alterpres [in Ukrainian].
Zubchyk, O. (2011). Politychni ryzyky v umovakh demokratyzatsii transformatsii suspilstva [Political risks in the conditions of democratization and society transformation]. Politychnyi menedzhment – Political management, 4, (pp. 92-104). Retrieved from: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/PoMe_2011_4_13 [in Ukrainian].
Karahioz, R.S. Holovni oznaky «suspilstva ryzyku» v epokhu postmoderna [The main features of the «risk society» in the postmodern era]. (n.d.). kspodn.onu.edu.ua. Retrieved from: https://surl.li/yqgrhz [in Ukrainian].
Lukashevych, M., & Nediukha, M. (2008). Suspilstvo ryzyku [Risk society]. V.H. Horodianenko (Ed.). Kyiv: Akademvydav [in Ukrainian].
Pekhnyk, A.V., Kroitor, A.V., & Zavhorodnia, Yu.V. (2019). Teoriia ryzyku: istoriia ta suchasni pidkhody [Risk theory: history and modern approaches]. Aktualni problemy polityky – Actual problems of politics: collection of scientific works, 63, (pp. 33-47). Odesa: Feniks [in Ukrainian].
Semykina, M.V., & Skibitska, O.V. (2005). Ekonomichnyi ryzyk ta metody yoho vymiriuvannia [Economic risk and methods for its measurement]. Kirovohrad: KNTU [in Ukrainian].
Tarasova, O.A., & Chernous, L.S. (2019). U.Bek i E.Hiddens pro suspilstvo ryzyku [U. Beck and E. Giddens on a risk society]. Sotsialni tekhnolohii: aktualni problemy teorii ta praktyky – Social technologies: current problems of theory and practice, 83, (pp. 53-58) [in Ukrainian].
Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck’s conceptions of risk. (n.d.). (2015). ktchmm.wordpress.com. Retrieved from: https://surli.cc/kygsqc [in English].
Beck, U. (2015). Emancipatory catastrophism: What does it mean to climate change and risk society? Current sociology, (Vol. 63), 1, (pp. 75-88) [in English].
Beck, U. (2000). From Industrial Society to Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment. Risk Management. Editionist Edition, (pp. 17-45) [in English].
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications [in English].
Beck’s Theory of Risk Society of Modernity: Definition and Speciality of Risk Society. (n.d.). www.academia.edu. Retrieved from: https://surl.li/hodjad [in English].
Giddens, A. (1991). Fate, Risk and Security. books.google.com.ua. Retrieved from: https://surl.li/yabjzv [in English].
Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Polity: Reprint edition, (pp. 27-28) [in English].
Hallman, R.J. (1963). The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Creativityy. The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Creativityy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, (Vol. 3), 1, (pp. 14-27) [in English].
Hansson, S.O. (1996). What is philosophy of risk? Theoria, (Vol. 62), 1-2, (pp. 169-186) [in English].
Luhmann, N. (1991). Der Begriff Risiko. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter [in Germany].
Mythen, G. (2004). Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society. Retrieved from: https://surl.li/znfkyp [in English].
Schaefer, R. (1978). What Are We Talking About When We Talk About «Risk»? Critical Survey of Risk and Risk Preference Theories. Luxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis [in English].
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). New risks, new welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press [in English].









.png)






.png)


















