Does the National Flood Insurance Program Have Redistributional Effects?

Author(s):  
Okmyung Bin ◽  
John Bishop ◽  
Carolyn Kousky

AbstractThis study examines possible redistributional effects of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), using a nationwide database of flood insurance policies and claims between 2001 and 2013 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Applying methods from the tax and transfer progressivity literature, we use the departure from per capita income proportionality at the zip code level as our measure of progressivity. Our findings indicate that premiums as a percentage of coverage purchased are regressive: premium shares are larger than income shares for lower-income zip codes. Payouts, however, also as a percentage of coverage purchased, are progressive, meaning lower-income zip codes receive a larger portion of claims paid. Overall net premiums (premiums – payouts) divided by coverage are also regressive. Our findings are driven by certain aspects of the current rate structure of the NFIP, as well as how income is related to risk. We discuss potential policies to provide assistance to lower-income households in purchasing flood insurance.

1984 ◽  
Vol 1 (19) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
William G. Fry ◽  
Perry A. Rhodes

This report will update the coastal zone practitioner on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as it affects the implementation of manmade changes along the coastline. It is our intent to place in proper perspective this fast-changing and often difficult to interpret national program. Readers will achieve an overall understanding of the NFIP on the coast, and will be in a position to apply the program's requirements in their efforts. We will begin with a history of the application of the NFIP to the coastal zone. The history of the problems encountered will lead into current regulations, methodologies, and the changes the Federal Emergency Management Agency plans for the future.


Author(s):  
Christina Lindemer ◽  
Jeffrey Gangai ◽  
Christopher Mack ◽  
Elena Drei-Horgan ◽  
Darryl Hatheway

Flood Insurance Studies (FISs) produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) per the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations and guidelines adopt storm-induced erosion criteria often called the “540 rule”. The methods used in the erosion analysis have been in place since the 1980s. The method requires dunes to be classified as fully eroded, or “removed”, when their cross-sectional reservoir is smaller than 540 square feet. Since the rule’s first application, additional data and recent evidence have become available leading FEMA to identify this approach as an area of the program in need of updating and improvement. Experts involved in conducting coastal hazard analyses for FEMA studies recommend exploring opportunities to improve FEMA guidelines for erosion criterion and revise NFIP regulations and guidance, as needed, to ensure that storm-related erosion hazards are appropriately evaluated and mapped along US coastlines.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Przeworski

The paper is narrowly addressed to a single puzzle: How did it happen that countries that attempted to install democracy earlier enjoyed it less frequently? Regime dynamics are driven by two mechanisms: (1) Democracies become more durable as per capita income increases, and (2) Past experiences with democracy destabilize both democracies and autocracies. As a result, countries that experiment with democracy at lower income levels experience more regime instability. Moreover, until they reach some income threshold, at any time such countries are less likely to be democratic than countries that first enter democracy when they have higher incomes. Hence, paradoxically, the resistance of European monarchies against democracy resulted in democracies that were more stable than those following post-independence attempts in Latin America.


2003 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 639-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Keeler ◽  
Warren Kriesel ◽  
Craig Landry

This paper uses the results of a nationwide survey of coastal property owners to estimate the demand for insurance against erosion damage. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) does not technically cover such damage, although in practice there is considerable uncertainty about this point. The ability to insure against such losses has implications for the choice of beach management strategies and for NFIP management. We find significant demand for insurance at prices in the range of current flood insurance premiums, although median willingness to pay appears to be less than the cost of providing such insurance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document