Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy

Andrew Healy, Loyola Marymount University, and Neil Malhotra, Stanford University | 2009

In our democratic system, citizens vote for their representative politicians, elected councils, public leaders, governors, and governing councils. But what about citizens’ perceptions of how risks are handled by their leaders, and what about citizens’ appreciation of proactive thinking by councillors related to public risks when it comes to voting?

Quote: “Do voters effectively hold elected officials accountable for policy decisions? Using data on natural disasters, government spending, and election returns, we show that voters reward the incumbent presidential party for delivering disaster relief spending, not investing in disaster preparedness spending. These inconsistencies distort the incentives of public officials, leading the government to underinvest in disaster preparedness, thereby causing substantial public welfare losses.”

“We estimate that $1 spent on preparedness is worth about $15 in terms of the future damage it mitigates.”

“By estimating both the determinants of policy decisions and the consequences of those policies, we provide more complete evidence about citizen competence and government accountability.”

Bibliography

Healy, A. and Malhotra, N. (2009) Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy. American Political Science Review: Vol. 103, No. 3 August

Download the scientific article

Future Global Shocks

Improving Risk Governance

European Parliament | 2022

This report addresses risks and building capabilities for Europe in a contested world. The coronavirus crisis has demonstrated that the European Union faces various risks, that those disparate risks are interlinked, and that the response to such challenges to the Union is stronger with the Union and its Member States acting together.

Russia’s war on Ukraine, launched while this study was being drafted, shows us more than just the added value of the Union’s concerted action and the ability of EU institutions and Member States to find new and effective solutions to deal with major shocks.

Risks and policy responses linked

This paper, the first in an annual series, seeks to assess the risks to, and capabilities and resilience of, the EU system. Building on a review of global risks, it considers specific risks with the potential to harm Europe and its people in detail.

It then sets out options for policy responses to ensure Europe can address the dangers of such risks and minimise the potential damage. Among the options set out are those previously included in European Parliament resolutions, in positions from other EU institutions, and in policy papers from think tanks and stakeholders.

Lees verder

Multi-level governance

Jack Kruf | december 2022

Meerlagig bestuur vormt een essentieel onderdeel van het navigeren door de publieke sector. Net als in de natuur zijn er invloeden die op en neer gaan tussen de lagen van het ecosysteem. Als stadsmanager en gemeentesecretaris heb ik bijvoorbeeld het komen en gaan ervaren van nationale beleidsplannen, regels en wetgeving naar beneden toe, en financiële en politieke invloeden naar boven toe, evenals de samenwerking tussen verschillende bestuurslagen bij complexe projecten of programma’s. Maar wat is meerlagig bestuur precies? Waar komt de term vandaan? Hoe wordt deze gebruikt? Een korte studie.

Het is een benadering in de politicologie en de theorie van het openbaar bestuur die voortkomt uit studies over Europese integratie. Volgens Piattoni (2001) ontwikkelden politicologen Liesbet Hooghe en Gary Marks het concept van multi-level governance in het begin van de jaren negentig.

Lees verder

Seizing the day

PriceWaterhouseCoopers | 2010

The impact of the global financial crisis on cities and local public services: the ‘Great Recession’ has had a dramatic impact on the financial services sector and other areas of the private sector and highlighted the importance of the role of government at international and national levels in addressing global and systemic risks.

But what has been the global financial crisis’s impact on cities and local governments’ roles and brands? How have their budgets (both costs and revenues) been affected? And how confident are local government leaders in their ability to deal with future threats and, most importantly, effectively and swiftly respond to these challenges?

This report addresses these issues based on the findings of an international survey of city and local government leaders, which sought to gauge their reactions and understand their responses to the global financial crisis. It is clear from their reactions that local government leaders have already seen a significant impact on their organisations and brands and a collapse in revenues.

Tough times, hard choices

Tough times are driving innovation, collaboration, and service design and rationalisation. There are winners and losers—local government leaders, particularly in developed countries, who are facing the need to transform in the face of an impending crisis. In contrast, others, particularly in developing countries, have the opportunity to learn the lessons and leapfrog to new models of service delivery, particularly focusing on early intervention and prevention and making more use of commissioning.

Now is a time to get back to basics and focus on those functions where cities and local governments can add the most value and retain the talent critical to these core functions. Greater collaboration between public sector agencies, private and voluntary/not-for-profit organisations, and spatially across geographies is also needed.

Our goals in publishing this report are to outline the challenges and opportunities facing local government leaders following the onset of the global financial crisis and to set out our views on the future for cities and local governments and successful ways for local government leaders to act. The research builds on the insights from PwC’s Global Cities and Local Government Network’s publication ‘Cities of the Future’ and subsequent toolkit, drawing on our experiences working with cities and local governments worldwide.

We appreciate the time the local government leaders took to respond to our survey. This report focuses on the 58 responses we received for the global survey to provide a geographically balanced spread. The results are also split by Developed countries (33 responses) and Developing countries (25 responses), in cities comprising a total population of over 120 million people. We have also commissioned country-specific reports for Brazil, The Netherlands and Sweden, covering an additional 215 cities. The details of our sample and methodology for this global report are in the Appendix.

This report would not have been possible without the active participation of all the contributing cities and local authorities. We would like to thank all respondents for their contributions and whose views form the basis for this report.

Download: Seizing the daytekst

(Global) Resilient Cities Network

Global Resilient Cities Network | 2019

The 100 Resilient Cities network continues its goals under the provisional name Global Resilient Cities Network (GRCN). The year 2019 has been a year of significant change.

At the Urban Resilience Summit in Rotterdam, 100 cities worldwide came together under the name 100 Resilient Cities (100RC). Rotterdam, as one of the 100 Resilient Cities, acted as the host city because of its exemplary role as a resilient city.

From medio 2019, the 100RC network will continue under the provisional name (Global) Resilient Cities Network (GRCN). GRCN is leading the global conversation on building resilient cities, or in other words, making cities resilient and future-proof, to accelerate climate action and social and economic resilience, among other things.

Lees verder

Agenda 21

United Nations | 1992

Agenda 21 is a voluntary action plan developed by the United Nations and national governments at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992. At the Summit, governmental leaders worldwide agreed on the need to become more sustainable—to meet today’s needs without sacrificing our future.

Agenda 21 presents a vision for how all levels of government—especially in the developing world—can take voluntary action to combat poverty and pollution, conserve natural resources and develop in a sustainable manner. One-hundred-seventy-eight nations, including the United States under the Bush Administration, adopted the agenda.

Preamble

"1.1 Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development."

Agenda 21 is not a treaty or legally binding document and does not infringe upon the sovereignty of any nation, state, or local government. Agenda 21 does not advocate for abolishing private property or have any bearing on U.S. local and state land-use decisions. In other words, it isn’t being forced on anybody, anywhere, by any organisation.

A chapter within Agenda 21 introduces the concept of a “Local Agenda 21” and offers a vision for how local governments can develop their own sustainability initiatives.

28.1. Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national and subnational environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development.

A key theme with Agenda 21 was local self-determination and community engagement: “Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organisations and private enterprises. Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and local, civic, community, business and industrial organisations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development issues.”

Download Framework.

INTERFUTURES: Facing the future

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) | 1979

Following an initiative by the Government of Japan in May 1975, a major new research project was established within the framework of the OECD on 1st January, 1976, to study “the future development of advanced industrial societies in harmony with that of developing countries”. The project, now referred to as INTERFUTURES ran for a period of three years to 31st December 1978.

Mastering the Probable and Managing the Unpredictable.

The primary purpose of the project, as laid down at the outset by the OECD Council, was: “to provide de OEDC Member Governments an assessment of alternative patterns of longer-term world economic development in order to clarify there implications for the strategic policy choices open to them in the management of their own economies, in relationships among them, and in their relationships with developing countries”.

p. 10: “The publication in 1972 of the Report of the Club of Rome on The Limits of Growth stimulated a decades-old debate, one which is essential for mankind and can be summed up in a single question:

Will the growth in population and in the world economy be helped in the relatively near future by the constraints resulting from the limited availability of the earth’s natural resources or the absorptive capacities of the ecosystem?

If this were to be the case, then efforts would have to be made at once to find ways of achieving another kind of growth which would be more economical in non-renewable resources and less harmful to the physical environment.”

Final chapter p. 423

“A starting point

If the many challenges which the advanced industrial societies will have to meet in the next half-century are to be progressively mastered, nothing is more vital than the establishment in the foremost societies of a solid political leadership capable of taking into account both the long-term issues and the interdependence between the various areas.

Yet the fact has to be faced that in today’s democracies the plans which pay quick dividends have more chance of being carried out than other, more important ones whose benefits are long-term. In election campaigns the long-term issues are often pushed into the background or not mentioned at all, since politicians are convinced, perhaps rightly, that voters look no further than their own private interests and their immediate environment. Things will probably continue this way until the political leaders succeed in producing a vision of long-term objectives that will win the deep conviction of the majority of citizens, but conversely, those same political leaders will need an essential minimum of support from the population in order to embark on this course.

The possible futures described in this report show not only the importance of political dialogue in the democracies of the developed countries, but also the value of informing the public very extensively about trends in the world as a whole.

Scientific circles, the education system and the media should help in this priority task.

    • Where the scientists are concerned, it is not a question of their setting up as specialists in fields other than their own, but of helping as objectively as possible to inform the public of the contribution which the physical, biological or social sciences can make to an understanding of world issues.
    • The education system is a key element of modern democratic societies. In a world of growing interdependence, a knowledge of foreign countries, different cultures and other languages is as crucial for the continental nations like the United States as for the small OECD countries. Furthermore, in societies where the challenges of the future are liable to be political, economic and social, it is probably necessary to think again about how to combine the sound and precise technical training that international competition demands with the outward orientation necessary for a citizen of a democratic country.
    • Finally, the mass media have a responsibility in regard to dissemination of information, critical assessment of policies and introduction of constructive proposals. Often they have simply picked on the sensational aspects of the issues of the future, be it to announce the end of the world or to reassure the uneasy, but they need to do more than disseminate futurological trivia. They must contribute to a realisation by the citizens of developed countries of the tasks that await them and the problems they will have to resolve.

The democratic systems of industrial societies have deep and secure roots. Despite their inadequacies, they should show themselves to be able to face up to the possibilities the future holds. They can ensure that no ageing, sclerosis or withdrawal process threatens those societies in their coexistence with the young societies of the Third World and the socialist world of East Europe.

This report will have achieved its aim if it succeeds in convincing the main active forces in the developed countries to undertake extensive efforts to spread the word about the challenges of the future. Not to develop a resignation to the inevitable but to generate creative responses. Even if many questions remain unanswered or if some of the points of view expressed are debatable, the work of INTERFUTURES should be the starting point for increased allowance for the long term in the policies of governments. For this, which things are necessary:

    • Based on this report, each country looks searchingly into the specific long-term issues with which it will be confronted and then undertakes the necessary additional studies.
    • That the OECD countries then consult one another on the policy conclusions they have drawn from this vast investigation of the long term.”

Report: INTERFUTURES: Facing the future