Tverdokhlib O., Teslenko O., Shtyka B. Risk-oriented governance in contemporary public administration: a comprehensive theoretical, methodological, and institutional analysis

Tverdokhlib O.
Doctor of Science in Public Administration, Professor, Leading researcher at Regulatory Research Department, Institute of Research in Civil Protection, National University of Civil Protection of Ukraine, Kyiv
ORСID: 0000-0002-1502-2937

Teslenko O.
PhD in Governance and Public Administration Deputy Head at Regulatory Research Department, Institute of Research in Civil Protection, National University of Civil Protection of Ukraine, Kyiv
ORСID: 0000-0002-1003-8876

Shtyka B.
lecturer at the department of advanced training and specialized preparation in the field of civil protection, Educational and Scientific Institute of Engineering and Specialized Training, National University of Civil Protection of Ukraine, Cherkasy
ORСID: 0009-0002-4343-4928

 

RISK-ORIENTED GOVERNANCE IN CONTEMPORARY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A COMPREHENSIVE THEORETICAL, METHODOLOGICAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

DOI: 10.52363/passa-2026.1-28

Abstract

This research presents a comprehensive analysis of the transition toward risk-oriented governance in contemporary public administration, an evolution necessitated by the shift from post-war stability to systemic vulnerability. By reconceptualizing risk as a foundational category of governance rather than a technical variable, the study explores how modern institutions can enhance strategic capacity and reflexivity. A central pillar of this analysis is Ulrich Beck’s “Risk Society” thesis, which posits a transition from the distribution of “goods” to the distribution of manufactured “bads”, challenging the “organized irresponsibility” of traditional bureaucratic structures. The analysis incorporates the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) framework, providing a multi-stakeholder pathway for managing systemic risks through interlinked phases of pre-assessment, appraisal, and evaluation. Methodologically, the work advocates for pluralism, integrating quantitative data-driven models with qualitative expert insights to bridge the gap between objective indicators and subjective contexts. It also introduces “Evidential Pluralism” (EBP+) for robust policy evaluation. To address the 2024–2025 “polycrisis” landscape – characterized by compounding climate, geopolitical, and digital threats – the research utilizes the OECD’s FIELD/SCOPES and the “AAA” (Antifragile, Anticipatory, Agility) frameworks to institutionalize proactivity. Economic flexibility is further addressed via Real Options Theory, treating public investments as dynamic options to manage uncertainty. Finally, the study warns against the “state of exception”, where crisis-driven governance may normalize exceptional executive powers, and instead proposes an ethical framework built on ex ante accountability and integrated cross-sector resilience.

Keywords: risk-oriented governance, public administration, polycrisis, systemic risk, institutional resilience, anticipatory governance, risk society, methodological pluralism.

Published: 26.06.2026

References

  1. Abdul Kader Jilani, M. M., Tasnim, S., Rahman, N., Asgar, A. S. M. R., & Ahmed, N. (2026). Role of ethics, meritocracy, and professionalism in public sector reforms: A Q methodology study. PLoS one, 21(2), e0342981. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342981.
  2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage Publications.
  3. Çobanoğlu, T. T. (2026). The Silent Erosion of Human Rights in Democratic Societies: Crisis Governance and the Normalization of Exceptional Powers. http://www.iconnectblog.com/the-silent-erosion-of-human-rights-in-democratic-societies-crisis-governance-and-the-normalization-of-exceptional-powers/.
  4. Hood, Ch., Rothstein, H. & Baldwin R. (2003). The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford Academic.
  5. Hutton, H. (2025). Systemic Risk Governance. https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/news/systemic-risk-governance.
  6. IRGC Risk Governance Framework (2019). https://irgc.org/risk-governance/irgc-risk-governance-framework/.
  7. Jong, A. (2022). World Risk Society and Constructing Cosmopolitan Realities: A Bourdieusian Critique of Risk Society. Front. Sociol., 7, 797321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.797321.
  8. Kato, T. (2023). Well-being policy evaluation methodology based on WE pluralism. Contemporary and Applied Philosophy, 14, 159-175. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.04500.
  9. Knudsen, O. K., & Scandizzo, P. L. (2011). Real Options and Project Evaluation: a Primer. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/300761468275362646/pdf/624870WP0P08720June090201100PUBLIC0.pdf.
  10. Liu, H. & Renn, O. (2025). Polycrisis and Systemic Risk: Assessment, Governance, and Communication. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 16, 526–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-025-00636-3.
  11. Oliveira, V. G. de, & Abib, G. (2023). Risk in public administration: A systematic review focused on a future research agenda. Revista de Administração Pública, 57(6), e2022-0419. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220220419x.
  12. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022.
  13. Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Routledge.
  14. Parlov, N., Akrap, G. & Esterhajer, J. (2025). Supply Chain Security and AI Risk Governance Model for Critical Infrastructure under NIS2, CER, and CRA. Applied Cybersecurity & Internet Governance, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.60097/ACIG/211823.
  15. Renn, O. (2006). Risk Governance: An Application of Analytic-Deliberative Policy Making. in: VALDOR 2006. Values in Decisions on Risk, Stockholm, 14-18 May, 364–371.
  16. Schweizer, P.-J., & Juhola, S. (2024). Navigating systemic risks: governance of and for systemic risks. Global Sustainability, 7, e38. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2024.30.
  17. Stephens, M., Awamleh, R., & Sicre, F. (Eds.). (2025). Anticipatory Governance. Shaping a Responsible Future. World Scientific.
  18. Todisco, L., Mangia, G., Canonico, P. & Langella, F. (2025). Foreseeing the future: anticipatory governance as a response to the technological and managerial challenges in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2025-0109.
  19. Tõnurist, P., & Orlik, J. (2025). Towards anticipatory governance guidelines for public sector organisations. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 82. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a5203d0b-en.
  20. Williamson, J. (2024). EBP+: Integrating science into policy evaluation using Evidential Pluralism. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/blog/ebp-integrating-science-policy-evaluation-using-evidential-pluralism_en.