« Part of the Problem | Main | Scarcity »
Katrina recommendations
Steven Horwitz, who notes that Wal-Mart did a better job than FEMA, has a study and a plan:
1. For relief and recovery efforts and ensure that its role [the private sector] is officially recognized as part of disaster protocols.
2. Decentralize government relief to local governments and non-governmental organizations and provide that relief in the form of cash or broadly defined vouchers.
3. Move the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
4. Reform “Good Samaritan” laws so that private-sector actors are clearly protected when they make good faith efforts to help.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 3, 2008 at 10:50 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
My recommendation would be to have a competent Administration once again in Washington. It is widely accepted that the Bush Administration took what was previously regarded as one of the most effective Federal programs, FEMA under Jamie Lee Witt, and systematically and intentionally gutted it through inattention and mismanagement.
There is certainly a role for the private sector in disaster response (and yes there is ample blame for the Katrina catastrophe to be laid at the feet of the states), but to focus on this is to provide cover for the inexcusable neglect on the part of Washington.
Posted by: martin at Apr 3, 2008 11:15:54 AM
During the summers of 2003, 2004 and 2005 the State of Florida was hit by something like 8 named storms (I used to have this information but don’t anymore so I’m going from memory) and was able to function, some would even say thrive.
Arguably none of those storms was as intense as Katrina but the level and range of destruction caused by these storms was tremendous (again I apologize for not being able to quantify the Florida damages vis a vie Katrina). Shouldn’t Florida’s ability to react and recover from storms be the appropriate yard stick for comparison, not an increase in the Federal Government’s involvement?
Maybe the failure isn’t FEMA because in our federal system state and local governments are responsible for this, e.g., Florida, but instead whatever failures happened post Katrina should be blamed on the inherent corruption that has existed in Louisiana, especially New Orleans, for well over a century, coupled with the inability of citizens to take care of themselves after they’ve become totally dependant on government entitlement programs for their daily existence.
Posted by: Dave Richardson at Apr 3, 2008 11:23:25 AM
I think Martin said all that needs to be said.
Posted by: Deron Bauman at Apr 3, 2008 12:01:25 PM
I think Martin may not have read the paper. There is no cover provided for FEMA in the paper.
FEMA should be an after disaster aid coordination agency. The first response should be local and flexible. These are two things FEMA is not.
BTW: None of what I write should be construed as a defense of the Bush Administration FEMA administration. The appalling performance started at the top and included all levels.
Posted by: Alan Coffey at Apr 3, 2008 12:19:01 PM
Alan, no I was just responding to Tyler's post. I agree that FEMA is designed as a post-response agency.
Posted by: martin at Apr 3, 2008 12:34:23 PM
This is just part of the fantastic real time economic experiment we have been running for seven year. Many claim that regulators, and other government agencies are not needed. So for seven years we have had an administration that has done everything it could to reduce the effectiveness of regulators. So have the surge in tainted food products, unsafe toys and liars mortgages proven or disproven the argument that the capitalist system is self regulating and that regulators are not necessary?
Posted by: spencer at Apr 3, 2008 12:48:18 PM
It is widely accepted that the Bush Administration took what was previously regarded as one of the most effective Federal programs, FEMA under Jamie Lee Witt, and systematically and intentionally gutted it through inattention and mismanagement.
If electing an incompetent executive is all it takes to cripple such an "effective Federal program", then the system is fundamentally flawed. If a federal program isn't idiot-proof, then it isn't the type of program that I want to trust my life and welfare to.
If, in a few short years, G. W. Bush was able to do all the damage you said he has done, completely under the radar and outside the scrutiny of the public at large... well then what sort of idiot would still support FEMA?
but to focus on this is to provide cover for the inexcusable neglect on the part of Washington.
The question isn't if the neglect was inexcusable... the question is if the neglect was predictable and inevitable.
If disaster relief is a decentralized system, run by a whole bunch of local governments and private institutions, then there is a natural redundancy. It is very hard for a single person to screw the system up that badly.
If you support the glorious Soviet-modeled FEMA system, then you have to accept the face that once in a while a total idiot will be elected, and every time that idiot is elected, thousands of people will die unnecessarily. If FEMA requires an a "good president" to work properly, then FEMA sucks because you can't always bank on having a "good president".
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 3, 2008 1:20:11 PM
"It is widely accepted that the Bush Administration took what was previously regarded as one of the most effective Federal programs, FEMA under Jamie Lee Witt, and systematically and intentionally gutted it through inattention and mismanagement."
I can't say whether or not that assertion is wrong, but I am curious as to exactly why it is widely accepted. Of course, having a pulse, I've encountered the sentiment before, but aside from the popular dislike for President Bush, I'm not sure of why I should be blaming him for hurricane Katrina.
I am not saying that you're wrong, but why should we have expected the disaster management to be better?
I am not a fan of the president, and I would suspect (though I don't know) that merging Federal agencies is a costly endeavor, but I don't recall the pre-Bush years as an idyllic time where massive bureaucracies were highly functional, and the streets flowed with milk, honey, and free health care for everyone.
I hope to be wrong, but I think that people saying "if only Bush weren't in office" are in for some sour persimmons come 2009, when he's gone and all of our problems persist. Certainly, I assume that he'll continue to be blamed for a good while, and sometimes legitimately.
Posted by: d.cous. at Apr 3, 2008 1:21:21 PM
This is just part of the fantastic real time economic experiment we have been running for seven year. Many claim that regulators, and other government agencies are not needed. So for seven years we have had an administration that has done everything it could to reduce the effectiveness of regulators. So have the surge in tainted food products, unsafe toys and liars mortgages proven or disproven the argument that the capitalist system is self regulating and that regulators are not necessary?
What country are you discussing? Certainly it isn't the United States, where there has been nothing but a vast increase in regulation and government agencies and spending.
I think the big flaw in your thinking is that you equate more regulation and government with the effectiveness of regulation and government. You can't accept the fact that increasing government might decrease the effectiveness of government... that the effectiveness of government is probably some sort of bell curve, and there is probably a threshold where more government actually decreases the positive effect of government.
People have been conditioned to see the government as God, an all-powerful bestower of social justice... instead of simply a social machine that operates according to immutable rules of nature. If government fails, it must be a conspiracy by evil people who oppose social justice - It can't possibly be that there are flaws and limitations in the institution of government itself.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 3, 2008 1:34:42 PM
I don't think the paper makes a good argument for #2 - "Decentralizing government relief". It uses the examples of Wal-Mart and the Coast Guard as organizations that allowed broad discretion pretty far down the management chain. But those are still examples of discretion staying within the organization. Those 2nd class petty officers and store managers have years of history with the organization (anywhere from 2 years up to decades). They are going to be part of the organization after the disaster relief efforts.
Decentralizing to local governments is a very different thing: now you're moving discretion between organizations. You're giving power to someone that you've never met before and, after the disaster is over, will never see again. That is a very different level of trust than Wal-Mart or the Coast Guard exhibited.
I also thought the paper hand-waved away the incentives that federal agencies have to minimize "waste" (as seen by the outraged electorate when there isn't a disaster in the offing). All it takes is one series of LA Times articles in an election year about wasted federal funds (either through innocent incompetence or actual graft) in local government disaster relief to undo all efforts at decentralization.
Posted by: Justus at Apr 3, 2008 1:40:23 PM
I love the fact that we a have a President who can be blamed for all of our national woes - it makes it possible for us to stop bothering to try and really understand what happened.
I have not read the paper - but will - but I personally believe that the "logistics" and demographics of New Orleans played a very large role - and continues to have an impact.
A service based economy with a very large need for low wage workers that is below sea level and in an isolated area creates unique challenges.
Posted by: Bruce Humbert at Apr 3, 2008 1:48:01 PM
I chuckled when I read:
"Move the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)."
Wasn't it just put in the DHS? Maybe the problem isn't the structure of these organizations. This is something to do, and clearly something must be done, so we must do this. - Oh Government, you amuse me.
Posted by: Mason at Apr 3, 2008 3:18:47 PM
"So have the surge in tainted food products, unsafe toys and liars mortgages proven or disproven the argument that the capitalist system is self regulating and that regulators are not necessary?" Firstly UI disagree that any deregulation has occured in these areas. As Tylor pointed out a few weeks ago the US has one of the tightest banking regulatory systems of any nation. Second I would say that the market responded to these errors faster than any government regulation. The stock has fallen in response to all of the areas youi mentioned this means that both investors and consumers have withdrawn their support punishing them for their neglect. Civil courts will continue to dishout justice. The government on the otherhand seems to be rewarding these companies with subsidies. I ask you spencer, which is the failed regulatory system?
Posted by: at Apr 3, 2008 4:23:30 PM
Rex (and other readers) may want to check out
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/04/03/bush-vote-buying-and-the-2004-elections
Posted by: martin at Apr 3, 2008 4:59:30 PM
People have been conditioned to see the government as God, an all-powerful bestower of social justice... instead of simply a social machine that operates according to immutable rules of nature. If government fails, it must be a conspiracy by evil people who oppose social justice - It can't possibly be that there are flaws and limitations in the institution of government itself.
By this logic, my car is a piece of crap since it is liable to crash when I fall asleep behind the wheel.
Posted by: perianwyr at Apr 3, 2008 5:52:05 PM
Have any of the people who responded to my comments ever looked at the real world or heard of the shadow banking system. The current financial crises exist essentially because the Bush administration allowed an unregulated banking system to emerge along side the regulated banking system. the unregulated banking system is the one that created the financial crises. Come on, show me a regulated bank that is causing the crises and boom and bust cycles.
get out of your fantasy world.
As we saw throughout the 18th and 19th century it is the natural tendency of unregulated financial capitalism to generate boom and bust cycles. Haven't any of you ever studied any actual economic history.
I asked it as a question. Now, you guys that are disagreeing with me I challenge you to show me any data to support your fantasies.
Posted by: spencer at Apr 3, 2008 8:39:59 PM
I wrote some similar points in a policy brief two years ago, available here.
Mason asks, wasn't FEMA just put into DHS? Yes, when DHS was created post-9/11. The point is, that was a tremendous mistake. FEMA ended up spending too much time focusing on terrorism prevention, and too little time focusing on preparing for disaster response (whether natural or man-made). There was never a good reason to put FEMA in DHS. Pulling it out and making it independent again, with a mandate of being prepared to respond to disasters, and prepared to coordinate with both state/local authorities and private organizations is the best--but unfortunately unlikely--option.
Posted by: James Hanley at Apr 3, 2008 10:40:45 PM
I think everybody is right - we should privatise the army and disaster relief, and nationalise the banking system.
Posted by: dsquared at Apr 4, 2008 5:39:59 AM
Spencer,
If you need an example of regulated institutions causing boom and bust cycles look only to the real estate problems of the late 1980s that led to what is known as the S&L crisis, look to the sovereign debt crisis of the mid-1980s and then look at the real estate crisis of the mid-late 1970s. All caused by lax lending at insured depository institutions.
Posted by: Dave Richardson at Apr 4, 2008 9:14:18 AM
Dave, no! You have all wrong. Anything bad is directly related to Bush.
FEMA, as said above, is for AFTER the disaster. Primary assistance is on the local, and then state level. New Orleans failed miserably as did Louisiana. The people in Louisiana have re-elected their officials so obviously they got exactly the care they wanted.
We've already spent $500,000 per resident of N.O. - it's time to say we've done enough.
Posted by: Tom at Apr 4, 2008 9:32:54 AM
By this logic, my car is a piece of crap since it is liable to crash when I fall asleep behind the wheel.
You car *IS* a fundamentally flawed system if you have a reasonable expectation that you will fall asleep behind the wheel on a regular basis. It is even more flawed if 300 million people happened to be riding in your backseat, and one mistake is a national disaster.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 4, 2008 11:18:08 AM
"If electing an incompetent executive is all it takes to cripple such an "effective Federal program", then the system is fundamentally flawed."
nice!
Posted by: oops at Apr 4, 2008 7:06:39 PM
If you have to buy vis, please come to our company.
Posted by: buy vis at Jan 1, 2009 10:21:08 PM
Dofus kamas
buy dofus kamas
cheap kamas
dofus kama
dofus gold
dofus money
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 18, 2009 1:46:21 AM
thanks your advice
Posted by: batage at May 14, 2009 4:24:35 AM
