Sarah Zhang of The Atlantic spoke with Princeton University and UCLA economist Leah Boustan about Houston and Hurricane Harvey. They discussed to what extent the natural disaster that befell Houston might serve as an impetus for residents of Houston to migrate, to move elsewhere.
Dr. Boustan and her colleagues Matthew Kahn, Paul Rhode, and Maria Lucia Yanguas have tracked the effect of natural disasters on economic activity in US counties. Their study has included an examination of migration after 5,000 natural disasters in the United States between 1920 and 2010.
The following excerpts follow Ms. Zhang’s transcription of Dr. Boustan’s discussion.
Risk & infrastructure
Boustan: We do find a migration response to an event like that. But for a very severe disaster—and Harvey looks like it’s going to be in that category—the response is twice as large.
Part of that has to do with people learning about the risk factors. Maybe they didn’t know the area they’re living in is so susceptible to storms.
Part of it is watching whether the existing infrastructure really works. There’s discussions now about Houston not really having enough of a drainage system. People might have known, yes, there are tropical storms, but they may not have understood the tropical storm is going to be such a devastating effect.
FEMA & centralized disaster response
Boustan: FEMA started in the early ’70s, and it gets its own independent status as an agency in ’78. We looked at before and after the ’70s, there was a hypothesis, well—and I’ve heard a lot of this post-Harvey—that when you have centralized disaster response, there’s not really an incentive to move out.
Moral hazard
Zhang: This is the idea of “moral hazard”: When you’re protected from the consequences of your actions, you take more risks.
Boustan: Right, like there’s going to be big government payout, and that encourages people to stay put in places that are risky. You know you’ll get your FEMA payout. We actually didn’t have any difference of course in the migration response before and after FEMA.
Centralized government response & disasters are getting worse
Boustan: But of course, this is really just a before and after, and there’s a lot things about the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, that could be different about the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s. In particular, you can really see the number of disasters and severity of disasters increasing. There are two things going on that could be kind of confounding. On one hand, there’s government response. On the other hand, disaster activity is getting worse. We can’t really separate those two things, but it looks like because disasters are getting worse, there’s just as much of a migration response more recently than there was in the ’30s, ’40s, and ’50s.
See:
“Will People Return to Houston After Hurricane Harvey?” | Sarah Zhang, The Atlantic, 3 September 2017
#Houston #HurricaneHarvey #Harvey #naturaldisasters #migrations #realestate #realestatemarket #market #risk #FEMA #economics #Princeton #UCLA
