IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v39y2021i6p1172-1191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advocacy coalitions and flood insurance: Power and policies in the Australian Natural Disaster Insurance Review

Author

Listed:
  • Michaela Dolk

    (Oxford University, UK)

  • Edmund C Penning-Rowsell

Abstract

Insurance against flooding creates households and places that are protected against financial harm in the form of catastrophic losses. Contested here are questions surrounding the availability and affordability of private insurance cover, significantly affecting the lives of people in at-risk geographies by imposing costs either as insurance premiums or episodic flood damages. Policy choices and decisions (‘political/economic’) about such controversial place-based environmental/risk issues (‘spatial’) are often made “behind closed doors†. A public inquiry opens those doors, albeit briefly, so we can see “what goes on†. The Natural Disaster Insurance Review (NDIR), a public inquiry after the 2010/2011 Australian floods, was a major forum of debate about Australian flood insurance policy. We explore the intricate politics of the key advocacy coalitions involved, to understand the NDIR’s role and outcomes. Our case study methodology uses content analysis of c. 100 NDIR submissions and reports, media coverage, and insurance industry and government statements, supported by in-depth interviews with people directly involved. We show that a well-resourced and powerful coalition of insurers was the dominant advocacy coalition in the NDIR and that consumers and their at-risk communities were represented by a relatively under-resourced coalition. The primary role of the inquiry as a problem-solving process was ultimately overridden during the post-inquiry implementation phase, during which the insurance coalition was dominant. Major NDIR recommendations were not implemented, and hence key spatial/political issues that the inquiry was established to address for the benefit of those at risk remained unresolved.

Suggested Citation

  • Michaela Dolk & Edmund C Penning-Rowsell, 2021. "Advocacy coalitions and flood insurance: Power and policies in the Australian Natural Disaster Insurance Review," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1172-1191, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:39:y:2021:i:6:p:1172-1191
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654420960484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654420960484
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654420960484?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edmund C. Penning-Rowsell & Sally Priest & Clare Johnson, 2014. "The evolution of UK flood insurance: incremental change over six decades," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 694-713, December.
    2. Brendon Solik & Edmund C. Penning-Rowsell, 2017. "Adding an implementation phase to the framework for flood policy evolution: insights from South Africa," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 51-68, January.
    3. Edmund Penning-Rowsell & Sally Priest, 2015. "Sharing the burden of increasing flood risk: who pays for flood insurance and flood risk management in the United Kingdom," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 991-1009, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Swenja Surminski, 2018. "Fit for Purpose and Fit for the Future? An Evaluation of the UK's New Flood Reinsurance Pool," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 21(1), pages 33-72, March.
    2. Robinson, Peter John & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Kunreuther, Howard & Chaudhry, Shereen J., 2021. "Default options and insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 39-56.
    3. Paul O'Hare & Iain White & Angela Connelly, 2016. "Insurance as maladaptation: Resilience and the ‘business as usual’ paradox," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(6), pages 1175-1193, September.
    4. Tesselaar, Max & Botzen, W.J. Wouter & Robinson, Peter J. & Aerts, Jeroen C.J.H. & Zhou, Fujin, 2022. "Charity hazard and the flood insurance protection gap: An EU scale assessment under climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Crick, Florence & Jenkins, Katie & Surminski, Swenja, 2018. "Strengthening insurance partnerships in the face of climate change: insights from an agent-based model of flood insurance in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Thomas Thaler & Thomas Hartmann, 2016. "Justice and flood risk management: reflecting on different approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management in Europe," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 83(1), pages 129-147, August.
    7. L. J. Bracken & E. A. Oughton & A. Donaldson & B. Cook & J. Forrester & C. Spray & S. Cinderby & D. Passmore & N. Bissett, 2016. "Flood risk management, an approach to managing cross-border hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(2), pages 217-240, June.
    8. Max Tesselaar & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Toon Haer & Paul Hudson & Timothy Tiggeloven & Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, 2020. "Regional Inequalities in Flood Insurance Affordability and Uptake under Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-30, October.
    9. Alex Y. Lo & Faith Chan, 2017. "Preparing for flooding in England and Wales: the role of risk perception and the social context in driving individual action," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(1), pages 367-387, August.
    10. Chloe H. Lucas & Kate I. Booth, 2020. "Privatizing climate adaptation: How insurance weakens solidaristic and collective disaster recovery," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    11. C. Dieperink & D. L. T Hegger & M. H. N. Bakker & Z. W. Kundzewicz & C. Green & P. P. J. Driessen, 2016. "Recurrent Governance Challenges in the Implementation and Alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies: a Review," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(13), pages 4467-4481, October.
    12. Edmund Penning-Rowsell & Sally Priest, 2015. "Sharing the burden of increasing flood risk: who pays for flood insurance and flood risk management in the United Kingdom," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 991-1009, August.
    13. Hilary Graham & Piran White & Jacqui Cotton & Sally McManus, 2019. "Flood- and Weather-Damaged Homes and Mental Health: An Analysis Using England’s Mental Health Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-12, September.
    14. Steven Koop & Fabian Monteiro Gomes & Laura Schoot & Carel Dieperink & Peter Driessen & Kees Van Leeuwen, 2018. "Assessing the Capacity to Govern Flood Risk in Cities and the Role of Contextual Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    15. Jason Thistlethwaite, 2017. "The Emergence of Flood Insurance in Canada: Navigating Institutional Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 744-755, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:39:y:2021:i:6:p:1172-1191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.