The general idea that translations tend to be more explicit than non-translations (the broad 'explicitation hypothesis') is one of the few apparent discoveries that have been made by Translation Studies; Developed by Klaudy in relation to translation directionality and processes of implicitation, the hypothesis has been refined in such a way that we can now distinguish fairly well between explicitation required by different language systems (where explicitation in one direction is ideally matched by implicitation in the other) and explicitation as a feature of the translation situation itself (where the relation between explicitation and implicitation is asymmetric). In these terms, specifically asymmetric explicitation has been hailed as a potential translation universal . In its wider formulations, the explicitation hypothesis nevertheless remains hampered by conceptual imprecision and idealisms of stable meaning, as if there were just one thing, obvious to all, that could then be made explicit or implicit. These problems in turn lead to a wide range of possible reasons why explicitation could be a feature of translation. Many of these reasons can nevertheless be regrouped within the frame of risk management. One can thus post that translators orient interpretation processes in order manage the risks of non-cooperation in communication, and that they tend to be risk-averse because of the cultural reward system that often structures their professional tasks This approach can offer a rationalist and sociological explanation for explicitation while doing away with considerable semantic idealism.