Researcher and Writer in Washington, DC

Eli Lehrer, “Dead in the Water: The Federal Flood Insurance Fiasco,” the Weekly Standard, January 28, 2013


Eli Lehrer has written an interesting article on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

As he frames it, this insurance program illustrative of the challenge of taking a clever policy idea and translating it into a successful program. Between idea and action are politics and administration, both of which are critical to the success of a policy.

NFIP, Lehrer writes, was set up to contend with “a clear market failure.”

Before Congress set up the NFIP in 1968, only a handful of very small insurance companies wrote flood coverage as part of conventional homeowners’ policies. Although a demand for flood insurance clearly existed, nobody would sell it. This was a market failure as almost any economist would describe it [….]

On paper, the flood insurance law passed by Congress in 1968 looked sensible: It required participating communities to take steps to avoid building in disaster-prone areas, left requirements loose enough that private companies could take on risk if they wanted to, assured that rates on all future construction would be “actuarially adequate,” and promised that the federal government would draw up the maps that the private sector needed in the first place. As an incentive for people to buy the insurance, it denied all federal aid to those who qualified for the program but didn’t buy in. Although its creators allowed it to borrow funds from the Treasury—a stop-gap measure, lest major floods had hit in its first few years—the program was intended to break even over time and, some thought, might eventually be sold off to the private sector.

Yet, Lehrer writes, “By almost any analysis, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)—the recipient of a $9.7 billion bailout in the wake of Hurricane Sandy—doesn’t work. It is poorly conceived, it’s terribly mismanaged, and it encourages harmful behavior.”


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Similar posts
  • Voters Hold Officials Accountable for... Wouldn’t it be nice if voters punished politicians who increase budget deficits? Well, according to one research paper, they do. Adi Brender (Bank of Israel) and Allan Drazen (University of Maryland) crunched data from 23 nations on budgets and the electoral fortunes of chief executives. Their unambiguous finding was that “increased deficits during an incumbent’s [...]
  • Strengthening Congress by Shrinking t... Regulatory reform appears to be gaining traction in Washington, D.C. The White House directed agencies to halt the issuance of new regulations. Congress also got in the act. In its first week in session, the House of Representatives passed three bills to reduce the proliferation and costs of regulations. These are good first steps, but [...]
  • Inventing America My review of Fergus Bordewich’s illuminating tome, The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government, appears in the September 26, 2016 copy of the Weekly Standard. The Constitution they enacted is a remarkable document, but parchment was not enough to meld together the disparate states and peoples. [...]
  • First Among Equals: How George Washin... George Washington was born to middling stock in Virginia in 1732. He was a “conventional Virginia provincial” whose world had a stable social order and agrarian political economy. A planter class led this stratified society. These gentlemen dressed, spoke, and behaved differently from others, and their mores owed much to the English motherland and to [...]
  • Inappropriate Appropriations Congress spent $310 billion last year on some 250 agencies and programs that were no longer — as required under the law and Congress’s own rules — authorized to receive and spend funds. This problem of “expired authorizations” has grown with the ever-expanding size of government; and it contributes to that expansion by undoing long-established [...]