Protecting Our Homeland: Incorporating Vulnerability to Terrorism in State Homeland Security Grants
Vulnerabilities realized following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 highlight the need for the Federal government to allocate funding for the prevention and response to terrorist events based on vulnerability to terrorism. However, the funding formula used by the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) is based on a lump sum to all states plus an incremental amount distributed by population. Therein the formula does not explicitly address varying risks across States. The objective of this paper is to theoretically formulate an alternative formula to distribute grant funding based on vulnerability to terrorism across States. Empirical techniques are used to test three hypotheses regarding grant funding. State government data are used to infer the optimal funding levels to cover expected damages associated with various targets: population density, hazardous material sources, federal courts, hospitals, interstates, pipelines, power generation, public water use, airports, universities, port capacity, and confined feeding operations. State allocations for the SHSP and the larger Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) are compared to allocations based on vulnerability to terrorism. Vulnerability-based allocations are calculated for all states. The difference between vulnerability-based allocations and the SHSP allocations indicate that the SHSP program over-compensates for population-based vulnerabilities and under-compensates for other vulnerabilities. The results suggest that the HSGP does not eliminate the population-bias of the SHSP.
|Date of creation:||2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2005. "Recollection Bias and the Combat of Terrorism," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 27-55, 01.
- Grossman, Philip J & West, Edwin G, 1994.
" Federalism and the Growth of Government Revisited,"
Springer, vol. 79(1-2), pages 19-32, April.
- Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger, . "How to Fight Terrorism: Alternatives to Deterrence," IEW - Working Papers 137, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Darius Lakdawalla & George Zanjani, 2002.
"Insurance, Self-Protection, and the Economics of Terrorism,"
NBER Working Papers
9215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Lakdawalla, Darius & Zanjani, George, 2005. "Insurance, self-protection, and the economics of terrorism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(9-10), pages 1891-1905, September.
- Bruck, Tilman & Wickstrom, Bengt-Arne, 2004. "The economic consequences of terror: guest editors' introduction," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 293-300, June.
- Ladd, Helen F. & Yinger, John, 1994. "The Case for Equalizing Aid," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 47(1), pages 211-24, March.
- Bergstrom, Theodore C & Goodman, Robert P, 1973. "Private Demands for Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 280-96, June.
- Frey, Bruno S. & Luechinger, Simon, 2004. "Decentralization as a disincentive for terror," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 509-515, June.
- Viscusi, W. Kip, 1984. "Regulating uncertain health hazards when there is changing risk information," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 259-273, December.
- Borck, Rainald & Owings, Stephanie, 2003. "The political economy of intergovernmental grants," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 139-156, March.
- Boadway, Robin & Horiba, Isao & Jha, Raghbendra, 1999. " The Provision of Public Services by Government Funded Decentralized Agencies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 157-84, September.
- Poterba, James M. & Rueben, Kim S., 2001. "Fiscal News, State Budget Rules, and Tax-Exempt Bond Yields," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 537-562, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19380. 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: (AgEcon Search)
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.