114
Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention
The empirical findings are striking, but the intelligence of voters, when fully informed, to look past the labels and promises should not be underestimated. Indeed, voter preferences tend to result in more prevention in countries that have more effective governments and better institutions. Incidence and voice: Why they matter
Ignoring incidence—who ultimately bears the burden of an intervention— can also undermine collective prevention measures, particularly for those most affected. It is easy—and all too common—to use country and governments synonymously with victims. But victims are overwhelmingly poor households, most official aid goes to governments, and relief and prevention spending does not always benefit victims. Government actions reflect the preferences of those who influence its decisionmaking; if marginalized sections of society—often the very poor—have little economic clout or political voice, their well-being gets ignored. So incidence is of great concern, particularly if choices on collective prevention do not reflect their preferences. If the poor have little voice, decisions to spend and locate large scale protective infrastructure may either bypass the poor completely or result in their dislocation—with often little or no compensation—if it turns undesirable land where they reside into coveted real estate. Developing this land may well displace poor residents to other risk-prone parts of a city or places far from economic opportunity. Moreover, because they would be dislocated, the poor would not even reap the benefits of protective infrastructure put in place. If the poor therefore do not have the opportunity to influence public goods decision making, spending and allocation of collective prevention measures could be biased against those most at risk. In this illustration, early warning systems rather than protective infrastructure may have served the poor better. What happened in Indian states when the poor were not consulted in the use of anti-drought funds (box 4.1)?
Box 4.1 India and anti-drought funds In his book Everybody Loves a Good Drought: Stories from India’s Poorest Districts, journalist Palagummi Sainath details how measures to manage drought in the mid-1990s in the states of Bihar, Maharashtra, and Orissa were appropriated by the influential at the expense of the poor. The central government Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) was put in place to manage and reduce the effects of drought. But the selection of the DPAP block became politicized because monetary benefits followed. For example, the town of Lonavla—with abundant rainfall (seldom below 1,650 millimeters annually and sometimes as much as 2,000 millimeters)—was designated as a DPAP block. DPAP blocks in Maharashtra grew 73 percent of sugar cane, a highly water-intensive crop, and the irrigated area in DPAP blocks was almost 50 percent higher than the state average. Meanwhile the poor in drought-stricken areas were not consulted and did not participate in the use of anti-drought funds. Source: World Bank staff.