About a month ago, I remember hearing on NPR that Chile was an economic success story, having one of the highest standards of living in Central America. This is an important thing to consider when looking at the destruction of the 8.8 earth quake that hit it yesterday. According to the Economist:
"[T]he gap between the two countries’ levels of development and disaster preparation means that the aftermath will be very different. While Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, Chile has been one of Latin America’s better-performing economies for years, and living standards are similar to those of large middle-income countries like Russia and Mexico. That wealth has enabled it to invest in transport and health infrastructure that far surpasses Haiti’s. This has ensured that search and rescue teams can reach their destinations quickly, and that survivors will receive prompt medical attention. "
Chile has more capital, and a stable government that invested in its infrastructure. It is interesting to consider that government spending on infrastructure doesn't just lead to a rise in the GDP of a country, but also functions as a form of insurance, protecting the country's people and assets and making for a speedier economic recovery. The Economist article highlights this good economy as insurance with:
"Just off its [Chile's] coast is the Nazca plate, which rests below the south-eastern Pacific Ocean and slides beneath the South American tectonic plate by some 9 centimetres a year. The geological fault-line between them has seen 13 earthquakes of magnitude 7 or higher since 1973, as well as the single biggest tremor in recorded history, a magnitude 9.5 quake that struck Valdivia in 1960. As a result, Chilean leaders have had both the foresight to establish strict building codes, and the money and institutional strength to enforce them."
Chile was able to thoroughly prepare itself because it had the money, awareness and the stable government necessary to do so. What this article has made apparent to me is how much riskier anything is when a country is poor. Haiti, for various reasons didn't have the capital or means of distributing it in order to enforce building codes or implement disaster strategies. It has lost more because it was incapable of spending more on infrastructure. Thus, ultimately those who make more can be more prepared and can therefore lose less.
In comparing Haiti and Chile, I would consider this fairly true, but I was wondering about other cases, like say Hurricane Katrina. The article ends with: "Although nature decides when and where disasters strike, it is still humans who determine how much suffering they inflict." Can a disaster prove to be an economic barometer, showing who is rich and who is poor by the means of who suffers the most?
Link to Article is Here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very interesting article to read about. I had never really thought of a healthy economy as an insurance policy for things like natural disatsters. It definitely makes sense though after reading about it. It's unfortunate that lower economic countries will suffer more when something like a natural distaster occurs, but in a way it's almost like survival of the fittest. A strong economy will be able to protect itself. Although, luckily for lower economic countries, there are gracious countries throughout the world that offer help. A E
ReplyDeleteI think natural disasters most definitely prove the strength of an area's economy. When doing a little research to compare the facts from Haiti's earthquake and Chile's, I discovered an article from CNN that agreed with this concept:
ReplyDelete"Poverty is what ultimately kills most people during an earthquake. Poverty means that little or no evaluation is made of seismic risk in constructing buildings and no zoning takes place. It means that building codes are not written, and even if they do exist they are difficult, or impossible, to enforce. It means the choice between building robustly or building cheaply is not a choice at all."
I think special care should be taken when rebuilding Haiti to ensure that if such a tragedy should occur again it's losses won't have the same devastating impact just because its citizens can't afford to build houses as sturdy as those in countries with larger economies.
A, T
I think the excerpt that Bridget posted is interesting and absolutely true. I think that those in charge of rebuilding Haiti should closely examine Chile's infrastructure, since that infrastructure is built to survive earthquakes.
ReplyDeleteAs far as natural disasters acting as economic barometers, I feel that that is true to a point.
Like the post said, Chile had the awareness. Earthquakes are a huge part of Chile's contemporary history, and therefore they were better prepared. Outliers would definitely occur if a natural disaster were to strike in an unusual location.
A
Comparing the earthquakes that hit Chile and Haiti in the last few months,many would agree that there is a definite difference between the two; the amount of devastation and the ability to restore. I think the article is true in its statement that a nations economy serves as an insurance policy for the people. Chile as a well to do nation suffered losses and is a tragedy on a global scale, yet people were prepared and able to rebuild with its own economic resources.Haiti on the other hand suffered at a greater extent because of a lack of resources and knowledge. I never considered the ever strong correlation between economics and natural disasters yet it is an unfortunate injustice of this world .
ReplyDeleteA
It is unfortunate that countries with poor economies suffer more when it comes to natural disasters. It is also understandable however, because they simply do not have the funds necessary to provide for the citizens in the event that something happened. Fortunately, there are countries, like the United States, who are both willing and able to provide extra help and money to countries in need.
ReplyDelete