GRF · Policy Nexus
Risk-informed policy
Every government decision carries risk, but few governments decide with a shared picture of it. Risk informed policy is the practice of bringing evidence about hazards, exposure, vulnerability and systemic interdependence into budgets, regulation, investment and planning, with clear ownership at the centre of government. This page sets out how policy risk develops when that practice is missing, how the capacity for it is measured, and which institutions hold the decisions that depend on it.
Risk-informed policy in seven parts.
- 01The questionRisk-informed policy: how the risk develops
- 02IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 03SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 04DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 05Core questionsWhat experts ask
- 06Mechanisms and driversWhy risk stays outside everyday decisions
- 07Methods and dataHow the evidence is built, and where it stops
Risk-informed policy: how the risk develops.
Risk across government decisions. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Fragmented ownership
Risks that cross ministries often belong to none of them. Without an assigned lead, a coordinating body and a budget line, assessment is duplicated in some places and absent in others, and the gap is found only after a shock.
Short horizons, long risks
Electoral and budget cycles reward visible spending over prevention whose benefits are diffuse and delayed. Risks that build slowly, such as ageing infrastructure or fiscal exposure to disasters, are deferred until they become emergencies.
Assessment disconnected from decision
National risk assessments are produced but not linked to budget rules, investment appraisal or regulatory review. The evidence exists, yet no procedure obliges a decision-maker to read it before committing funds or making rules.
Contingent liabilities cascade
When risk is unmanaged, losses land on public balance sheets as unplanned transfers, called-in guarantees and reconstruction costs. A shock in one sector becomes a fiscal shock, then a constraint on every other policy the government had planned.
People and hazards in Africa.
Population density, night lights and flood water over Africa, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and hazards, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
People and hazards, framed on Africa.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date. They are indicators, not assessments of any place.
Data: NASA GIBS · ASTER GDEM · Blue Marble · © OpenStreetMap contributors · Natural Earth · NASA EONET · U.S. Geological Survey · NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColorSources and licences
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University. 2018. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11. NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). doi:10.7927/H49C6VHW. CC BY 4.0
- VIIRS Black Marble night-time lights, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; distributed by the NASA Level-1 and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System (LAADS DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- VIIRS near-real-time products (flood, land surface temperature, snow cover, corrected reflectance), NASA LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), VIIRS 375 m active fire product, NASA LANCE; vector tiles via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- MODIS land products (vegetation indices, gross primary production, land cover), NASA LP DAAC and LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA (ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003, NASA LP DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). Cite as: NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Spacesystems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team (2019). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003. doi:10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003. NASA open data
- Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. Public domain
- © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), via NASA GIBS (coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). ODbL
- Blue Marble, NASA Earth Observatory; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Context on the globe and flat map: coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names from NASA GIBS reference layers (OpenStreetMap data, ODbL, © OpenStreetMap contributors); Blue Marble imagery as an optional base; 3D terrain and the elevation read-out from the ASTER GDEM elevation colour index (5 m to 200 m classes, exaggerated for legibility). Boundaries are drawn as published and imply no position on any territory.
- Live events: NASA Earth Observatory Natural Event Tracker (EONET); events are indicative and keep their original source links.
- Live: NASA EONET Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: U.S. Geological Survey Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColor (CIRA). We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- NASA GIBS: We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- Optional layers (5 sources in the layer list: live, forecast, observed and context) print their provider credit on the map and here when switched on; forecasts are model output and derived indices are estimates.
Layers and dates
- Population density, 2020: Population: CIESIN, Columbia University, Gridded Population of the World v4.11 (2018), NASA SEDAC, CC BY 4.0 · static
- Night-time lights, daily: VIIRS Black Marble (VNP46A2), NASA LAADS DAAC · 12 Oct 2026
- Flood water, 3-day composite: VIIRS Global Flood Product, NASA LANCE · 14 Oct 2026
- Active fires and thermal anomalies: VIIRS NOAA-20 375 m (FIRMS), NASA LANCE FIRMS · 13 Oct 2026
- True colour: VIIRS NOAA-20 corrected reflectance, NASA LANCE · 13 Oct 2026
- Land cover type (IGBP), yearly: MODIS Terra and Aqua land cover (MCD12Q1), NASA LP DAAC · 2024
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National risk assessment linked to policy and budget procedures | categorical (none, partial, integrated) | periodic survey | OECD survey on the governance of critical risks | DECLARED |
| Ex ante impact assessment requirements for primary laws | composite score on the iREG scale | triennial | OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance | ESTIMATED |
| Government effectiveness | estimate and percentile rank | annual | World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators | ESTIMATED |
| Fiscal risk statement published with the budget | yes or no, with scope of risks covered | annual | Budget documents and fiscal council reports | Published statistics |
| Disclosed contingent liabilities from disasters | share of GDP, as disclosed | annual | Fiscal risk statements | Published statistics |
| Strategic capacity of the centre of government | index score | periodic | Bertelsmann Sustainable Governance Indicators | ESTIMATED |
| Public investment projects appraised with risk screening | percent of approved projects | annual | National public investment system records | REPORTED |
Policy tracker.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Policy tracker
Risk-informed policy · Member state A · Session 3
Policy cycle
Options appraisal, planning law
| A · guidance only | 37 | Low | Mixed | High |
| B · duty with standards | 68 | Medium | Positive | Medium |
| C · duty, standards, funding | 76 | High | Positive | Low |
Decision record
- Owner
- Policy owner
- Decision by
- Legislative committee
- Evidence
- synthesis SY-55
- GRF role
- convenes, does not decide
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) | Comparable survey indicators on impact assessment, stakeholder engagement and ex post evaluation | Open, CC BY 4.0 |
| OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook | Periodic comparative review of regulatory practice and reform, with country profiles | Open, CC BY 4.0 |
| World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators | Aggregate estimates of government effectiveness, regulatory quality and four further dimensions | Open, CC BY 4.0 |
| Bertelsmann Sustainable Governance Indicators | Expert assessments of policy performance and executive capacity in OECD and EU countries | Free with attribution, publisher terms |
| IMF fiscal transparency evaluations | Country reviews of fiscal risk disclosure and management against the Fiscal Transparency Code | Free, IMF copyright and terms |
| National budget documents and fiscal risk statements | Published contingent liabilities, guarantees and disaster provisions | Public sector information, national terms |
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast. The map on this page shows Africa; the model itself is not tied to a place.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Policy Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Policy Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Policy Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Policy Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Centres of government and cabinet offices | Who owns each national risk, and how assessments must feed policy and budget decisions | Comparative institutional arrangements; the mandate map with gaps and overlaps marked |
| Ministries of finance | Whether and how to disclose and provision for contingent liabilities from disasters and systemic shocks | Fiscal risk statement practice across countries; the evidence labels behind disclosed liabilities |
| National legislatures and budget committees | What risk information to require with budget bills and major laws | Comparison of statutory reporting duties and how committees use them in scrutiny |
| Supreme audit institutions | Whether risk management arrangements work as the law intends | Audit criteria drawn from the OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Critical Risks; prior audit findings by theme |
Outputs this topic produces
- Policy primer on the institutional arrangements for whole-of-government risk assessment
- Comparative institutional brief on how risk enters budgets, investment appraisal and regulation
- Mandate map showing which body owns each cross-sector risk, and where none does
- Dialogue records from exchanges between centres of government, finance ministries and regulators
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction. The map on this page shows Africa; the model itself is not tied to a place.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Policy Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Policy Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Policy Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
What experts ask.
Researchers and practitioners in risk-informed policy ask how risk enters ordinary decisions.
- Which government decisions create or reduce exposure to major risks, and are those effects visible to decision-makers?
- Who in government owns cross-cutting risks, and how are they coordinated across ministries?
- How are national risk assessments used in budgets, plans and regulation?
- How do governments deal with deep uncertainty and low-probability, high-impact risks?
- How can risk appetite and trade-offs be made explicit and accountable?
Exercise a cascade in risk-informed policy with the people who decide.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Political and governance risk standards: the hazards it names, the systems and communities that carry the loss, the controls and institutions that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating event and step through the cascade to see where mandates meet and which decisions fall to whom. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise for dialogue, not a forecast, an assessment or a position. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.
Systems and couplings
Controls
NS-0Constitution and principlesNS-9Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-10Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)NS-11Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NRS-H112Hazard family: Governance and institutional failure (NHS-1 soc.governance)NRS-U9Universe platform profile: Financial Regulation NexusNRS-H59Hazard family: Economic shocks and governance failure (NHS-1 soc.economic)NRS-H118Hazard family: Organised crime and illicit economies (NHS-1 soc.crime)NRS-A5Built-in licensing and rightsNRS-U24Universe platform profile: Policy Nexus
Observation
- Worldwide Governance Indicators (listed for reference)
- V-Dem dataset (listed for reference)
- Global SDG Indicators Database (listed for reference)
- Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services
- Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive
- Number of countries that adopt and implement national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework
Why risk stays outside everyday decisions.
Most government decisions are made within portfolios, each with its own objectives and budget. A transport investment, a housing programme or a change in procurement rules can each add exposure to hazards or dependencies without any one ministry seeing the combined effect. National risk assessments often sit with security or emergency agencies and are not linked to economic and spending decisions. Accounting rules may record the cost of prevention but not the liabilities it avoids.
Countries that make progress tend to create clear ownership of cross-cutting risks at the centre of government, link risk assessment to budget and investment processes, and require risk to be considered in policy appraisal. Behavioural and political factors still matter: decision-makers discount distant risks, and accountability for avoided disasters is weak.
Why now: governments are asked to show how risk informs budgets, plans and regulation, from fiscal risk statements to national risk assessments. Policy Nexus compares how jurisdictions do this, convenes the institutions concerned, and records options and dissent for decision holders.
How risk-informed policy is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on risk-informed policy, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
How the evidence is built, and where it stops.
- 01
National risk assessment
Structured identification and comparison of risks, drawing on decision analysis under uncertainty. Comparing very different risks on one scale is contested.
- 02
Policy appraisal
Requiring risk to be considered in impact assessments. Appraisal can become a formality.
- 03
Institutional comparison
Comparing how governments organise risk ownership, using policy and institutional science. Arrangements depend on constitutional context.
- 04
Contingent liability analysis
Estimating the fiscal exposure governments carry implicitly. Estimates depend on assumptions about who will be bailed out.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Policy, institutional and decision scienceMandate mapping for a cross-sector risk · Review of regulatory impact assessmentsApplied here
- 02Decision analysis under uncertaintyOption appraisal for a policy instrument · Adaptive pathways for public planningApplied here
- 03Causal inference and impact evaluationStaggered adoption of a reform · Eligibility thresholds in programmesApplied here
- 04Game theory and mechanism designStability of a transboundary agreement · Design of a regional risk poolApplied here
Questions and answers.
What makes a policy risk informed?
Is a national risk assessment enough?
Why are governance indicators labelled estimated?
Does Policy Nexus advise governments?
Is risk-informed policy the same as emergency planning?
Can governments set a risk appetite?
Does GRF assess governments' risk management?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.