4 K Booth
limits to the capacities of insurance. Again, reflecting the power of insurance logics, EARM pushes governments to ‘think like an insurer.’ The
political ramifications of this normalisation illustrate the place-based constitution of insurance and, thus, its capacities and limitations. Within the
context of promises of sovereignty, autonomy and independence, and an
end to the structural violence of plantation economies, the moral imperative
of EARM for financial self-sufficiency in an increasingly volatile climate,
reinforces rather than dissolves social and racial inequalities and inequities.
To begin Section 2, ‘Water’, Rebecca Elliot reflects on flood insurance in
the United States and the United Kingdom, and the moves to minimise or
eliminate cross-subsidisation that has enabled those in high-risk areas to
afford to live and build there (with insurance) through the redistribution of
money from those paying insurance in low-risk areas. In the United States,
reducing cross-subsidisation is argued to achieve more equitable outcomes
given improved capacity to ascertain and rate flood risk. In the United
Kingdom, similar reductions are motivated by a redistribution of prudence
and responsibility that comes with clearer risk ‘price-signals.’ Elliot identifies a flaw in the logics underpinning this curtailing of cross- subsidisation
in both countries – namely that social interdependence always, already
necessitates sharing of risk and responsibility irrespective of neoliberal,
market-based logics. Thus, the focus could or should be on the nature and
desired outcomes of cross-subsidisation rather than blinkered attempts at
elimination.
Elliot’s observations resonate with the preceding chapters in this section,
both of which draw in interviews with households in flood-prone or floodimpacts areas. Chloe Lucas and Travis Young compare the experiences and
perceptions of insurance for residents in Hobart, Australia and Houston,
United States. Both places are covered by different insurance structures for
flooding – private insurance in Australia and the National Insurance Flood
Program (NIFP) in the United States, and have different socio- demographic
profiles – middle class in Hobart and racially and socially diverse in Houston.
Yet, between continents, households share understandings of resilience
and the capacities of insurance that are constructed through uncertainty
and dependent on varying levels of political empowerment. These understandings are in stark contrast to the resilience and insurance discourses of
government and the insurance sector, which position insurance as essentially
unproblematic and apolitical. Mark Kammerbauer and Christine Wamsler
also point to disconnects between government discourse and householder
experiences of the 2013 flooding in Deggendorf, Germany. Many homes were
inundated not only by water, but also by heating oil from ruptured piping.
In this context, uninsured households recovered more quickly with the support of government assistance than those with insurance, despite European
Union aspirations for self-responsibilisation. A lack of integration in flood
management suggests that similar ad hoc outcomes will continue, some of
which will be maladaptive (O’Hare et al. 2015).
limits to the capacities of insurance. Again, reflecting the power of insurance logics, EARM pushes governments to ‘think like an insurer.’ The
political ramifications of this normalisation illustrate the place-based constitution of insurance and, thus, its capacities and limitations. Within the
context of promises of sovereignty, autonomy and independence, and an
end to the structural violence of plantation economies, the moral imperative
of EARM for financial self-sufficiency in an increasingly volatile climate,
reinforces rather than dissolves social and racial inequalities and inequities.
To begin Section 2, ‘Water’, Rebecca Elliot reflects on flood insurance in
the United States and the United Kingdom, and the moves to minimise or
eliminate cross-subsidisation that has enabled those in high-risk areas to
afford to live and build there (with insurance) through the redistribution of
money from those paying insurance in low-risk areas. In the United States,
reducing cross-subsidisation is argued to achieve more equitable outcomes
given improved capacity to ascertain and rate flood risk. In the United
Kingdom, similar reductions are motivated by a redistribution of prudence
and responsibility that comes with clearer risk ‘price-signals.’ Elliot identifies a flaw in the logics underpinning this curtailing of cross- subsidisation
in both countries – namely that social interdependence always, already
necessitates sharing of risk and responsibility irrespective of neoliberal,
market-based logics. Thus, the focus could or should be on the nature and
desired outcomes of cross-subsidisation rather than blinkered attempts at
elimination.
Elliot’s observations resonate with the preceding chapters in this section,
both of which draw in interviews with households in flood-prone or floodimpacts areas. Chloe Lucas and Travis Young compare the experiences and
perceptions of insurance for residents in Hobart, Australia and Houston,
United States. Both places are covered by different insurance structures for
flooding – private insurance in Australia and the National Insurance Flood
Program (NIFP) in the United States, and have different socio- demographic
profiles – middle class in Hobart and racially and socially diverse in Houston.
Yet, between continents, households share understandings of resilience
and the capacities of insurance that are constructed through uncertainty
and dependent on varying levels of political empowerment. These understandings are in stark contrast to the resilience and insurance discourses of
government and the insurance sector, which position insurance as essentially
unproblematic and apolitical. Mark Kammerbauer and Christine Wamsler
also point to disconnects between government discourse and householder
experiences of the 2013 flooding in Deggendorf, Germany. Many homes were
inundated not only by water, but also by heating oil from ruptured piping.
In this context, uninsured households recovered more quickly with the support of government assistance than those with insurance, despite European
Union aspirations for self-responsibilisation. A lack of integration in flood
management suggests that similar ad hoc outcomes will continue, some of
which will be maladaptive (O’Hare et al. 2015).