Climate Change Resiliency: Patterns of Disaster Prevention in Political Regimes

• In Event: Frontiers of Disaster and Crisis Knowledge

Abstract

How has the need for climate resiliency affected the calculation of political regimes to engage in disaster prevention? As weather patterns related to climate change worsen, the implications in terms of natural disaster damage and threat to life have become increasingly serious for political regimes. Past research has suggested that engaging in disaster prevention is often not a priority for regimes, due to uncertainty over the future (long-run risk acceptance, or short-run satisficing) and a belief that international relief will be available should disaster strike (moral hazard problem). Other well known accounts have suggested that democratic political regimes have a more compelling interest in providing for the people in light of natural disasters. However, both uncertainty over the future and a belief that help will arrive if disaster strikes are complicated by the totality of climate change. As sea levels rise and temperature and precipitation patters become more variable, the threat of disaster looms large. The context of disaster prevention has changed from planning for future uncertainties to expecting imminent crisis. This means that responsive, capable regimes will need to address the issue of economic damage and threat to human life differently.

In concert with (or instead of) disaster prevention efforts, regimes can invest in climate resiliency efforts. Adaptive strategies, beyond status quo sustainability efforts, are now enshrined in the recent international agreements, Paris Agreement on climate change, and many political regimes have intentionally engaged in resiliency-building efforts. Do democracies and autocracies approach resiliency differently? Is economic and material capability a better explanation for adherence to resiliency efforts, or is regime type and institutional features a more compelling explanation? This paper quantitatively reviews the record of disaster prevention by regime type and capability as well as assesses these new questions.

Author

• Nicholas R. Davis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee