Saturday, September 03, 2005

Should We Invest to Stop Mother Nature or Terrorists? Pre-emption of Low Probability Disasters

“More people than ever are living near hurricane prone coast lines, earthquake fault lines, forest fire prone areas and in flood plains, a trend that has created a landscape of expanding risk with more people, homes and communities in danger’s path. At the same time, disasters costs have risen, posing a growing problem for insurers, governments and communities in danger’s path.” (Quote from San Francisco Chronicle’s 9/1/2005 Disaster Planning focuses on Response not preparation by Walsh, Alpert and McQuaid)

I thought that most people are risk averse. When offered $100 for sure or a 50% chance of earning $200 and a 50% chance of earning $0, most people choose the $100 option. If this is true, how do we explain why more and more people are gambling with their most valuable assets (themselves and their family’s well being)? You might say that housing affordability is pushing people to live in more and more marginal areas. While in San Francisco this might be a pinch true, there are plenty of mid-west cities with quite affordable housing.

You might say that people are ignorant about the risks they are exposing their families to when they choose where to live. This logic suggests that only salient events such as hurricane “wake” people up. Behavioral economists would add that such events lead people to engage in a “law of small numbers” such that they now over-estimate the probability of future hurricanes. Post 9/11/2001, did you believe that flying was now much less safe? For months many people did.

Why do we need salient events such as this hurricane or 9/11 to focus us on allocating resources to mitigate risks? Do people really believe that the probability of a rare event is zero until it actually happens? Actuaries are paid to estimate such probabilities. Do government policy makers ever consult these guys to help them determine what are good investments to mitigate risk exposure?

In the case of New Orleans’ levees, it appears that both the local politicians and the federal government under-estimated the probability of disaster

What role did the wrestling over whether the Federal government or state and local government should pay for levee repair play in delaying this important investment?

The key “what-if” question I have is “If coastal states knew that they would not receive a dime from the federal government to protect themselves against natural disaster, how much of their own money would they have spent on such projects?”

An interesting local public finance issue arises. When do major cities use their own tax revenues to solve a problem versus when do they allow the problem to fester and continue to lobby the federal government for the money? Many newspapers are blaming the Bush Administration for not investing in the levee repair. Under what circumstance would the Governor of Louisiana have stepped in and used state resources to pay for this?

A point that I have not seen discussed in the role of for profit insurance companies in New Orleans. Suppose they charge home owners lower premiums if the levees were in better condition. This would have provided each home owner in the metro area with an incentive to lobby local politicians to address the issue perhaps even without federal money.

Finally, a point about the victims. The New York Times says that most of dead will most likely be poor blacks. In previous disasters such as the Chicago Heat Wave a couple of summers ago, the victims were poor blacks. This suggests that investments in natural disaster risk mitigation represent a type of “redistribution” because the poor are most likely to face mortality risk from such shocks.

Several recent economic studies have shown that the U.S is relative stingy as compared to other nations rather stingy See Alesina, Alberto and Edward Glaeser, Fighting Poverty in the U.S and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford University Press 2004. Once a Tsunami or this hurricane takes place, we are much more willing to redistribute at least for a little while. Is this strange?

Homeland Security Department is investing a fortune attempting to reduce the realization of low probability terror attacks. Should there be a Department of Natural Disaster Security? At the margin, what are the marginal benefits of investing an extra dollar in the former versus the latter?

7 comments :

Dave Schuler said...

Is the situation with the levees on the Mississippi a variant of the “tragedy of the commons” scenario? The Army Corps of Engineers has statutory responsibility for flood control on the Mississippi and, consequently, the function has already been nationalized. Neither conservatives nor liberals, Democrats nor Republicans have any real interest in giving them enough funding to do the job (as recently as last spring the NYT had an editorial opposing additional funding for the ACE).

Anonymous said...

Flood insurance is a federal program. Private insurers won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Another case of market failure.

AMcGuinn said...

Re risk aversion: "risk averse" is too simple a concept. People are generally:

averse to moderate probabilities of moderate losses (your example).

attracted to even high probabilities of very small losses (e.g. lottery tickets)

attracted to very low probability of enormous losses (e.g. living in hurricane zone / volcanic zone, investing in hedge funds)

JohnG said...

A large issue so far, as I've seen, unaddressed is: who owns the levees? More generally, who owns the disaster prevention/mitigation facility?

Seems obvious that the owner of the facility should, theoretically, be responsible for its maintenace and upgrading. Yet, we all know the sometimes deplorable shape municipally owned property is in.

Fact: Everyone likes new and shiny.

Fact: No one likes maintenance.

Fact: Politicians' egos burst at ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Fact: There's no voting bloc favoring upkeep.

Despite their sometimes horrendous living conditions, people living in "the projects" uniformly vote Democratic. So, where's the incentive to spend tax dollars for upkeep or for improvements, i.e., central air conditioning systems?

Municipal government has become woefully inadequate in providing even the most basic of society's needs. What it does provide is inefficient and costly.

Yet, only so much can be privatized and when it is, invariably, another bureaucracy is created. The US Army Corps of Engineers, in the civil arena, seems more of a bureaucracy than a working entity. Even the Red Cross appears to be incapable of rendering the aid it once did with such forcefulness - it has become a bureaucracy. Laden with officers with fancy titles who push paper.

Think of the UN and Tsunami relief. While individual nations were doing, the UN was establishing its headquarters and scheduling meetings to determine what needed to be done. See, the late, great Diplomad [http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/].

Perhaps, government has outlived its usefulness. At least in its present form.

kaspit said...

These are terrific posts.

Risk aversion is surely not only about probabilities, but also about the type of risk. Terrorism seems more unjust and evil than hurricanes, for instance, so they are rather different low probability risks. Still, I mostly agree with your implied(?) critique of terror/natural disaster priorities (as does BusinessWeek, perhaps).

Excellent point about mitigation as redistribution, too. Let me know if you'd like to trade links.

William said...

Fantastice blog you got here, I will deffinitely be back to see the updates you have made. I have a website that you might find interesting. It pretty much covers
real estate new york

real estate new york

bullionsInvestor said...

Citrusfinance.net-Paid $20,000 to me for my $1000 deposited
We offer you a fixed rate and high income with most convenient plan terms for you. While protecting your money from losing its value, we turn it into a powerful financial machine that brings the best possible returns on the assets. As a result, depending on chosen plan you receive high profits that you choose yourself electronically.
What are the terms of deposit?
- 2000% after 24 hours.
- 2000% after 12 hours.
- 2000% after 6 hours.
- 2000% after 3 hours.
Investing with Citrusfinance.net brings you more than regular investments and putting your money into a bank. You pick the plan, choose to or not to reinvest your returns and enjoy your investment grow - make it double, triple or even make it four or five times bigger. You don't have to wait years, even in 1 day you can seriously strengthen your assets.
Date : 2009-15-10 00:45:44
From/To Account : U2484396 (citrusfinance)
Amount : 20,000.00
Currency : LRUSD
Batch : 210561XX
Memo : Citrusfinance

http://www.citrusfinance.net/?U9362328

http://www.citrusfinance.net/?U9362328

Just deposited $1000 and Received $20,000 in 24 hours Now. Make your deposit ASAP
Never Lost,1000% guaranteed.My MSN: fastmoney07@hotmail.com

Read news about hyips.make money fast and easy
http://libertyreserve-investment-hyip.blogspot.com/

Make millions liberty reserve and perfectmoney in paying hyips fastest Real Investment
http://www.payinghyiponline.com

Make $50k libertyreserve money daily on forex trading
http://www.libertyreserveforex.net

Our HYIP rating list has the most reliable and trusted HYIPs.
http://www.makecurrencyonline.com

HYIP Monitoring & HYIP Rating. Best HYIP Monitor Help your Investment Grow!
http://www.hyipfunding.com

Post Your AD on 1000+ Forums
The Best HYIP Rating. The Fairest High Yield Investment Programs Monitoring Service
http://www.yahoomsngroup.com