The economic impact of hurricane Sandy

Gauging hurricane Sandy's ultimate impact on the US economy is far more complex than merely adding up insurance payouts and uninsured losses. Disasters can give the ailing construction sector a boost, and unleash smart reinvestment that improves stricken areas.

Mel Evans/AP
Rough surf from the Atlantic Ocean breaks over the beach and across Beach Ave. on the morning of Oct. 29, in Cape May, N.J., as high tide and hurricane Sandy begin to arrive. Op-ed contributor Peter Morici says 'Americans, as they always seem to do, will emerge stronger in the wake of disaster and rebuild better – making a brighter future in the face of tragedy.'

Hurricane Sandy is predicted to severely impact people's lives and property. However, gauging its ultimate impact on an economy – still struggling to overcome the Great Recession but with substantial resources to overcome adversity – is far more complex than merely adding up insurance payouts and uninsured losses.

Disasters can give the ailing construction sector a boost, and unleash smart reinvestment that actually improves stricken areas and the lives of those who survive intact. Ultimately, Americans, as they always seem to do, will emerge stronger in the wake of disaster and rebuild better – making a brighter future in the face of tragedy.

Sandy is an unusual storm and complex to gauge. Coming late in the season and combining with cold fronts to the west and north, it is really a post-tropical cyclone and has the potential to deliver epic destruction. However, coming so soon after Irene in August 2011, the level of anticipation and preparedness demonstrated by federal and state officials is commendable and should mitigate some losses – especially loss of life.

Early estimates of the direct damage caused by hurricane Irene were around $7 billion but ultimately it inflicted $15 billion to $20 billion in damage.

It seems likely that Sandy will impose greater destruction of property. Add to that the loss of about two days commercial activity, spread over a week across 25 percent of the economy, and an initial estimate of the economic losses imposed by Sandy is about $35 billion to $45 billion.

However, rebuilding after Sandy, especially in an economy with high unemployment and underused resources in the construction industry, will unleash at least $15 billion to $20 billion in new direct private spending – likely more as many folks rebuild larger than before, and the capital stock that emerges will prove more economically useful and productive.

Regarding the latter, consider a restaurant with inadequate patronage – its owner invests the insurance settlement in a new more attractive business. On the shore, older, smaller homes on large plots are replaced by larger dwellings that can accommodate more families during the summer tourist season. The outer banks of North Carolina saw such gains several decades ago after rebuilding from a storm of similar scale.

All of this is not to discount the direct costs to individuals by temporary, and in some cases permanent, disruption to lives and communities, much of which cannot be quantified. However, when government authorities facilitate rebuilding quickly and effectively, the process of economic renewal, in many tangible ways, can leave communities better off than before.

Factoring in the multiplier effect of $15 billion to $20 billion spent rebuilding yields an economic benefit from reconstruction of about $27 billion to $36 billion. Add to that the gains from a more modern and productive capital stock – likely in the range of $10 billion – and spending by consumers and businesses that is only delayed but not permanently lost – likely in the range of $12 billion – and the total effects of natural disasters of the scale of Sandy are not as devastating two years down the road.

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland School. He is a widely published columnist.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.