Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:12:05.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polycentric orders and post-disaster recovery: a case study of one Orthodox Jewish community following Hurricane Sandy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

VIRGIL HENRY STORR ,
LAURA E. GRUBE  and
STEFANIE HAEFFELE-BALCH
VIRGIL HENRY STORR*
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
LAURA E. GRUBE*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Beloit College, Beloit, WI, USA
STEFANIE HAEFFELE-BALCH*
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
**Email: [email protected]
***Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast of the United States on 29 October 2012, flooding hundreds of thousands of homes and costing over $50 billion in property damage. After Hurricane Sandy residents and communities required food, water and clothing, and in the weeks and months following, there was demand for cleaning supplies, building materials and contracting services. Polycentric orders, because of their flexibility and access to local knowledge, are well suited to respond to the challenges of disaster. We highlight the importance of privately provided social services within polycentric orders and illustrate that the private provision of these services was important to post-disaster recovery in the Orthodox Jewish community in the Rockaway Peninsula in New York.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 875 - 897
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, D. (2012), Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, D. (2011), ‘The Externalities of Strong Social Capital: Post-Tsunami Recovery in Southeast India’, Journal of Civil Society, 7 (1): 81–99.Google Scholar
Beggs, J., Haines, V., and Hurlbert, J. (1996), ‘Situational Contingencies Surrounding the Receipt of Informal Support’, Social Forces, 75 (1): 201–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, E. (2000), ‘Sect, Subsidy, and Sacrifice: An Economist's View of Ultra-Orthodox Jews’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3): 905–53.Google Scholar
Boettke, P., Chamlee-Wright, E., Gordon, P., Ikeda, S., Leeson, P., and Sobel, R. (2007), ‘The Political, Economic, and Social Aspects of Katrina’, Southern Economic Journal, 74 (2): 363–76.Google Scholar
Boettke, P., Lemke, J., and Palagashvili, L. (2016), ‘Re-evaluating Community Policing in a Polycentric System’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 12 (2): 305–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamlee-Wright, E. (2010), The Cultural and Political Economy of Recovery: Social Learning in a Post-Disaster Environment, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chamlee-Wright, E., and Storr, V. H. (2009), ‘Club Goods and Post-Disaster Community Return’, Rationality and Society, 21 (4): 429–58.Google Scholar
Chamlee-Wright, E., and Storr, V. H. (2011), ‘Social Capital, Lobbying and Community-Based Interest Groups’, Public Choice, 149 (1–2): 167–85.Google Scholar
Coyne, C., and Lemke, J. (2012), ‘Lessons from the Cultural and Political Economy of Recovery ’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 71 (1): 215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iannaccone, L. (1998), ‘Introduction to the Economics of Religion’, Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (3): 1465–96.Google Scholar
Janssen, M. (2006), ‘Historical Institutional Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 2 (2): 127–31.Google Scholar
Kaplan, L., and Kaplan, C. (2003), Between Ocean and City, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998), ‘A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action’, American Political Science Review, 92 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010), ‘Organization economics: applications to metropolitan governance’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 6 (1): 109–15.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., and Walker, J. (Eds.) (2003), Trust and Reciprocity Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V., and Ostrom, E. (2002), ‘Public Goods and Public Choices’, in McGinnis, M. (ed.), Polycentricity and Local Public Economies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C., and Warren, R. (1961), ‘The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry’, American Political Science Review, 55 (4): 831–42.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (2010), ‘From New Institutional Economics to Organization Economics: with Applications to Corporate Governance, Government Agencies, and Legal Institutions’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 6 (1): 1–37.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. (2008), ‘Who's to Blame? (Mis)perceptions of the Intergovernmental Response to Disasters’, Plubius: The Journal of Federalism, 38 (4): 715–38.Google Scholar
Storr, V. H., and Haeffele-Balch, S. (2012), ‘Post-Disaster Community Recovery in Heterogeneous, Loosely-Connected Communities’, Review of Social Economy, 70 (3): 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storr, V. H., Haeffele-Balch, S., and Grube, L. (2015), Community Revival in the Wake of Disaster Lessons in Local Entrepreneurship, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Storr, V. H., Haeffele-Balch, S., and Grube, L. (forthcoming). ‘Social capital and social learning after Hurricane Sandy’, Review of Austrian Economics.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. (2005), ‘The Politics of Bureaucracy’, in Crowley, C. (ed), The Selected Works of Gordon Tullock, Volume 6: Bureaucracy, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 224–32.Google Scholar