Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Disaster and Recovery: The Public and Private Sectors in the Aftermath of the 1906 Earthquake in San Francisco

Contents:

Author Info

  • Douglas Coate

    ()

Abstract

A severe earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 severed electrical and gas lines and collapsed chimneys. Fires resulted, burning for four days over 2800 acres. The commercial and residential center of the city was destroyed. Two hundred fifty thousand people of the city’s 400,000 population were left homeless, including a majority of public and private sector workers. Municipal records of land titles and bank account records were lost. Payouts from property insurance claims, necessary for rebuilding, were in doubt because policies covered damage from fires, but not from earthquakes. The municipal government was corrupt. Yet, within three years the city was rebuilt, commercial activity restored, and the population level recovered. Two public sectors developments were key. The first was the actions of U.S. Army troops stationed outside the fire zone at the Presidio and Fort Mason. They moved to maintain order, protect property, and fight fires within hours of the earthquake. They patrolled the city for 74 days. These actions were extra-legal in that martial law was never declared. Army troops also built and maintained the communications network, took over the distribution of food and other supplies, and constructed and ran many of the relief camps. The second development was also extra-legal. The municipal government was displaced the day of the earthquake by a citizens committee of business and civic leaders. This Committee would control local government funds, including $10 million in donations, and dictate or cajole liberal land use, zoning, business licensing, and building trade rules to speed redevelopment and build confidence in the recovery. Thus, the U.S. Army and the Committee set the stage for rapid redevelopment by maintaining property rights and a legal and administrative framework conducive to a robust private market rebuilding of the city. In a narrow sense the uniqueness of the U. S. Army response and the displacement of the municipal government means the San Francisco recovery is not generalizable to other disasters. In a broader sense, however, the extraordinary San Francisco recovery echoes Hirshleifer: “Historical experience suggests that recovery [from a disaster] will hinge upon the ability of government to maintain or restore property rights together with a market system that will support the economic division of labor.”

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/department-economics/workingpaper20104
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Department of Economics, Rutgers University, Newark in its series Working Papers Rutgers University, Newark with number 2010-004.

as in new window
Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:run:wpaper:2010-004

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 360 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 353-5259
Web page: http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/economics
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: San Francisco; earthquakes; urban disasters;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Peter Boettke & Emily Chamlee-Wright & Peter Gordon & Sanford Ikeda & Peter T. Leeson & Russell Sobel, 2007. "The Political, Economic, and Social Aspects of Katrina," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 363-376, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:run:wpaper:2010-004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Vlad Manole).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.