Effects of government flood expenditures: the problem of crowding‐out

Abstract

Large inland floods represent a serious threat to the Central European territory. It is therefore necessary to develop efficient flood‐risk management based on shared responsibility, stressing the importance of the self‐engagement of local actors (such as municipalities, household, etc.). Central government flood expenditures are an influential factor that shapes their motivation and expectations. In this context, the article investigates the relevance of the concept of crowding out. In particular, it search for the reflection of the concept in the flood governance literature. A thorough review of Web of Science sources in the past 20 years has been undertaken in this matter. Furthermore, the intention is to discuss the problem of data availability (especially regarding flood expenditures of central governments) for assessing the crowding‐out effect on a macroeconomic basis. The Czech central government's activity after the disastrous floods of 1997 and 2002 is used as a case study.

Approaches to state flood recovery funding in Visegrad Group Countries

“…In terms of state flood recovery funding, all V4 countries have applied ad hoc compensations for a part of private damages. The portion of these damages covered is difficult to assess and varies among the countriesfrom 30% after the floods in 1997 and 2002 in Czechia (Slavíková, 2018), to approx. 30% in Slovakia, to 50% after the floods in 1997 in Poland (Linnerooth-Bayer & Amendola, 2003).…”

“…In Czechia after the floods in 2002, the Solidarity covered approx. 7% of the total damages (Slavíková, 2018), but the Fund basically does not provide compensation for private losses.…”

“…It has been indicated that in countries where central governments have traditionally played a strong role (such as in post-socialist European countries), state flood recovery funding tends to crowd out individual efforts (Raschky, Schwarze, Schwindt, & Zahn, 2013;Slavíková, 2018). However, robust comparative evidence of the risk-sharing approaches and recovery scheme designs in this part of Europe is missing.…”

Land for flood risk management: A catchment‐wide and cross‐disciplinary perspective

“…Tarlock and Albrecht (this issue) explore the constitutional and legal aspects of property rights and flood risk management by comparing the institutional systems in three countries: United States, Canada, and Germany. The paper by Slavíková (this issue) addresses the effects of flood recovery schemes on land use. She shows that the public schemes for flood expenditure and flood recovery provide an important trigger for behaviour of landowners after—and thus before—a flood.…”

Mayors and “their” land: Revealing approaches to flood risk management in small municipalities

“…In 2016, there were 6,259 municipalities with an average area of only ~12.6 km 2 , ranking among the smallest in the EU at the LAU2 (Local Administrative Units) level. Despite the decentralisation, which conforms to current EU trends (e.g., CoE, ; Thaler & Levin‐Keitel, ), the central government in Czechia is still perceived as a major actor responsible for FRM (e.g., Slavíková ), whereas the financial and social capacities of the municipalities are viewed as insufficient to support the legally‐binding responsibilities.…”