NFIP Dissertation Proposal Defense
1 like306 views
The document discusses the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which was established in 1968 in response to significant flood-related losses and aims to provide flood protection through various funding and risk management strategies. It presents a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) on the social impacts of flood mitigation and recovery, assessing the program's economic, sociological, and political dimensions from 1996 to 2009. Key findings emphasize that flood insurance's net social benefits and mitigation strategies are crucial for understanding governmental revenue impacts and formulating future public policy.
NFIP Dissertation Proposal Defense
- 1. Social Costs and Benefits of the National Flood Insurance Program Wednesday, 18 January 2012
- 2. National Flood Insurance Program Wednesday, 18 January 2012 Missouri floods in the 1920s caused significant damage. Private insurers pulled out of the market for decades. Gilbert White proposed national flood insurance in 1942. After initial trials in 1956, NFIP comes in 1968 Changes include introduction of flood mitigation standards --and requirements for actuarial soundness
- 3. Flood Recovery Wednesday, 18 January 2012 Flood Insurance implemented to piggy back on homeowners policies FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Fund Traditional insurers provide administrative duties Severe losses from major storms. --Katrina hit ~16B losses --Rita ~2B losses
- 4. Flood Mitigation Wednesday, 18 January 2012 Flood mitigation comes from three programs FMA SRL RLF
- 5. Project Goals Wednesday, 18 January 2012 This dissertation is for the public policy department at UMBC UMBC defines public policy around three disciplines--economics, sociology and political science BCA provides an opportunity to explore a program or policy through each of those lenses simultaneously BCA is often applied prospectively, going forward This dissertation will apply BCA retrospectively
- 6. Benefit-Cost Analysis What are the net social benefits of flood protection? Wednesday, 18 January 2012 This is fundamentally an economic analysis Will cover from 1996-2009 Will address both flood mitigation and flood recovery
- 7. Distributional Benefit-Cost Analysis What are the net social benefits impacts are valued by recipient class? Wednesday, 18 January 2012 This adds a sociological analysis to the first analysis Will revalue and weight impacts based on recipient Will use the first analysis as a baseline
- 8. Impact on Government Revenue Has the program saved government money? Wednesday, 18 January 2012 This adds an important political question to the analysis NFIP originally established to partially shift costs of recovery to victims Uses BCA, but only permits the Federal government standing
- 9. Implementation Wednesday, 18 January 2012 There are a number of complications that arise from this dissertation. This is not unusual, but some key areas of the implementation are worth discussing in greater detail.
- 10. Valuing Flood Insurance ∆S = ∆C + ∆P + ∆G + ∆E Wednesday, 18 January 2012 BCA may be considered as a balance sheet, looking like an accounting question BCA can also be considered as the sum of economic surpluses contributing to the NSB Delta-S is the change in S due to the program This takes advantage of that thought to simplify the development of the flood insurance NSB model
- 11. Valuing Flood Insurance ∆C = w - ϖ - a ∆P = φϖπ ∆G = ϖ - κ + a ∆E = B − β + ma Wednesday, 18 January 2012 w is willingness to pay for flood insurance The betas are ecological impacts k is the amount of claims in a given year e is the exante adjustment to the expost willingness to pay m is the marginal excess tax burden phi is the WYO premium to insurers varpi is the premiums paid to the NFIP pi is the historical profit ratio of insurers
- 12. Valuing Flood Insurance ∆S = κ(e + m) + φϖπ Wednesday, 18 January 2012 This is the key equation in valuing the flood insurance component represents 1 year's net social benefits k is the amount of claims in a given year e is the exante adjustment to the expost willingness to pay m is the marginal excess tax burden phi is the WYO premium to insurers varpi is the premiums paid to the NFIP pi is the historical profit ratio of insurers
- 13. Flood Insurance Data • Data provided by FEMA • County-level premiums and claims • Covers FY1977 to FY2009 • Also uses insurance profitability from BEA Wednesday, 18 January 2012
- 14. Valuing Flood Mitigation BCR = 5.0 at 2% SDR ⇓ ≅17.4% annualized Wednesday, 18 January 2012 This is what the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council found forms a major baseline in establishing the NSB of flood mitigation today BCR is lifetime returns (at 50 years). MMC report premised on funds spent in year 0 and a useful lifetime of 50 years The 2% SDR is removed and we are free to apply our own SDR
- 15. Flood Mitigation Data • Data provided by FEMA • FMA grant programs at state-level • Covers FY1996 to FY2011 • Local-level info is inconsistent Wednesday, 18 January 2012 Have recoded info for local governments Statewide-allocation issues - by population makes distribution more equitable - by income biases toward inequitable
- 16. Weighting by State Wednesday, 18 January 2012 income for states hard to justify disparate impact by income at state level is feasible, as show by map Red is < 40k orange 40-50 yellow 50-60 green > 60
- 17. State-Level Income Data • Data provided by Census Bureau • Population, income, quintiles, and Gini • Covers 1996 to 2009 Wednesday, 18 January 2012 Have recoded info for local governments Statewide-allocation issues - by population makes distribution more equitable - by income biases toward inequitable
- 18. Governmental Revenues Impacts • Presumed to be expected losses • Government not gauranteed to fund • Works with expected protection from MMC Wednesday, 18 January 2012 Revenue impacts are predicated on the assumption that the government is likely to make payments equalling the losses if there is no NFIP and no mitigation. The government has historically made similar payments MMC summarizes this by noting this extreme is unlikely, but so is the other. This is much better described as impacts "up to."
- 19. Importance • Baseline for further study of the NFIP • Baseline for analyzing prospective changes • Baseline for analyses of other programs Wednesday, 18 January 2012
- 20. Photo Credits Urs Hettich; Oregon Department of Transportation; David McKelvey; United States Geological Survey; Brisbane City Council; Bart Everson United States Army Corps of Engineers; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Google Maps and James Howard Wednesday, 18 January 2012