IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pit/wpaper/7023.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Climate Risk and Preferences over the Size of Government: Evidence from California Wildfires

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Coury

Abstract

How does exposure to risk shape individual preferences for an expanded state? I examine this question in the context of a source of risk prominently featured in the public discourse: climate change. I use variation in California wildfire activity to study how demand for government services evolves following exposure to climate change associated disaster events. I find that Census block groups experiencing a large fire in the two years preceding a biennial Congressional election increase support by 0.7 percentage points for ballot initiatives which expand government spending and taxation. Preference for a more activist state is stronger on the issues rendered most salient by fire exposure, as I document a larger increase of 2.6 percentage points in support for ballot initiatives endorsed by pro-environment interest groups. The effect of fire exposure is stronger in more Republican areas and decays with distance from a fire. The effect does not appear to be driven by shifts in voter registration or turnout, suggesting that the mechanism is indeed changes in individual preferences rather than compositional changes in the electorate.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Coury, 2020. "Climate Risk and Preferences over the Size of Government: Evidence from California Wildfires," Working Paper 7023, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    • Handle: RePEc:pit:wpaper:7023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econ.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/working_papers/M%20Coury%2020%20007_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dessaint, Olivier & Matray, Adrien, 2017. "Do managers overreact to salient risks? Evidence from hurricane strikes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 97-121.
    2. Gärtner, Manja & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Seim, David, 2017. "Individual risk preferences and the demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 49-55.
    3. Said, Farah & Afzal, Uzma & Turner, Ginger, 2015. "Risk taking and risk learning after a rare event: Evidence from a field experiment in Pakistan," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 167-183.
    4. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    5. Christopher P. Borick & Barry G. Rabe, 2010. "A Reason to Believe: Examining the Factors that Determine Individual Views on Global Warming," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 777-800, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shawn J. McCoy & Ian K. McDonough & Constant Tra, 2024. "Natural disasters, salience and public support for climate change policy," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 1691-1704, October.

    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. Stein T. Holden & Mesfin Tilahun, 2024. "Can Climate Shocks Make Vulnerable Subjects More Willing to Take Risks?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(4), pages 967-1007, April.
    2. Gualtieri, Giovanni & Nicolini, Marcella & Sabatini, Fabio, 2019. "Repeated shocks and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 53-71.
    3. Esteban J. Quiñones & Sabine Liebenehm & Rasadhika Sharma, "undated". "Left Home High and Dry-Reduced Migration in Response to Repeated Droughts in Thailand and Vietnam," Mathematica Policy Research Reports ac2ba236e1b8428fbeb6d8b43, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. Nicholas Ingwersen & Elizabeth Frankenberg & Duncan Thomas, 2023. "Evolution of Risk Aversion over Five Years after a Major Natural Disaster," NBER Working Papers 31102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ingwersen, Nicholas & Frankenberg, Elizabeth & Thomas, Duncan, 2023. "Evolution of risk aversion over five years after a major natural disaster," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    6. Biener, Christian & Landmann, Andreas, 2023. "Recovery mode: Non-cognitive skills after the storm," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    7. Fluhrer, Svenja & Kraehnert, Kati, 2022. "Sitting in the same boat: Subjective well-being and social comparison after an extreme weather event," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    8. Mahmud, Mahreen & Riley, Emma, 2021. "Household response to an extreme shock: Evidence on the immediate impact of the Covid-19 lockdown on economic outcomes and well-being in rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    9. Niculaescu, Corina E. & Sangiorgi, Ivan & Bell, Adrian R., 2023. "Does personal experience with COVID-19 impact investment decisions? Evidence from a survey of US retail investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Cakici, Nusret & Zaremba, Adam, 2022. "Salience theory and the cross-section of stock returns: International and further evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 689-725.
    11. Li, Weiping & Chen, Xiaoqi & Huang, Jiashun & Gong, Xu & Wu, Wei, 2022. "Do environmental regulations affect firm's cash holdings? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. Cheng, Zhiming & Smyth, Russell & Zhang, Le, 2024. "Does childhood adversity affect household portfolio decisions? Evidence from the Chinese Great Famine," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    13. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    14. Ersahin, Nuri & Giannetti, Mariassunta & Huang, Ruidi, 2024. "Trade credit and the stability of supply chains," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    15. Tim Krieger & Christine Meemann & Stefan Traub, 2022. "Inequality, Life Expectancy, and the Intragenerational Redistribution Puzzle - Some Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9677, CESifo.
    16. Pelli, Martino & Tschopp, Jeanne & Bezmaternykh, Natalia & Eklou, Kodjovi M., 2023. "In the eye of the storm: Firms and capital destruction in India," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    18. Hernán Bejarano & Joris Gillet & Ismael Rodriguez‐Lara, 2018. "Do Negative Random Shocks Affect Trust and Trustworthiness?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(2), pages 563-579, October.
    19. Gennaro Bernile & Vineet Bhagwat & Ambrus Kecskés & Phuong‐Anh Nguyen, 2021. "Are the risk attitudes of professional investors affected by personal catastrophic experiences?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 455-486, June.
    20. Malik, Ihtisham A. & Chowdhury, Hasibul & Alam, Md Samsul, 2023. "Equity market response to natural disasters: Does firm's corporate social responsibility make difference?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pit:wpaper:7023. 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: Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/depghus.html .

    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.