The Growth Aftermath Of Natural Disasters

Fomby, Thomas B.; Ikeda, Yuki; Loayza, Norman

doi:10.1596/1813-9450-5002

Cited by 99 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature reviews were not included in our meta‐analysis. Because we are interested in collecting t ‐statistics (significance levels) of the variables considered, empirical works using vector autoregressive models, input‐output, and computable general equilibrium (CGE) analyses could not be included since the former reported the impulse response functions only and not the short‐and long‐term coefficients (Fomby et al . and Cuñado and Ferreira are an exception, duly included in the meta‐analysis) while the results of input‐output and CGE analyses by design do not provide the standard errors or t ‐values that we need in our meta‐analysis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroeconomics of Natural Disasters: Strengths and Weaknesses of Meta‐Analysis Versus Review of Literature

Bergeijk

Lazzaroni

2015

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use the case of the macroeconomic impact of natural disasters to analyze strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis in an emerging research field. Macroeconomists have published on this issue since 2002 (we identified 60 studies to date). The results of the studies are contradictory and therefore the need to synthesize the available research is evident. Meta-analysis is a useful method in this field. An important aim of our article is to show how one can use the identified methodological characteristics to better understand the robustness and importance of new findings. To provide a comparative perspective, we contrast our meta-analysis and its findings with the major influential research synthesis in the field: the IPCC's 2012 special report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. We show that the IPCC could have been more confident about the negative economic impact of disasters and more transparent on inclusion and qualification of studies, if it had been complemented by a meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis shows that, controlling for modeling strategies and data set, the impact of disasters is significantly negative. The evidence is strongest for direct costs studies where we see no difference between our larger sample and the studies included in the IPCC report. Direct cost studies and indirect cost studies differ significantly, both in terms of the confidence that can be attached to a negative impact of natural disasters and in terms of the sources of heterogeneity of the findings reported in the primary studies.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroeconomics of Natural Disasters: Strengths and Weaknesses of Meta‐Analysis Versus Review of Literature

Bergeijk

Lazzaroni

2015

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to emphasise that the use of dummy variables in the VARX is not a new application. See, for example, Fomby et al (2013) in Journal of Applied Econometrics, who use dummy variables for disaster-related events to examine the effects of natural disasters on growth.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this model, denotes a vector of endogenous variables containing real GDP and the informal economy. TOT is included in the model as an I(0) exogenous variable, which allows a determination of how global factors affect domestic economic growth and other endogenous variables (Fomby et al 2013). Financial crisis is the dummy variable (deterministic variable).…”

Section: Model Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2020

AJbE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Notice that these shocks are by construction orthogonal to any of the endogenous variables in the system and can be treated as exogenous in (5).We estimate the model (5) using the bootstrap bias-corrected estimator (BSBC) in Pesaran and Zhao (1999) and Everaert and Pozzi (2007). The bootstrap sampling is modified to suit our unbalanced panel as in Fomby, Ikeda, and Loayza (2013). In this way, we address concerns about the consistency of the least-squares dummy variable (LSDV) estimator in dynamic models with a small time dimension (Nickell 1981).…”

Section: Empirical Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Export margins and world shocks: an empirical investigation in fixed and floating regimes

Cavallari

d’Addona

2019

Applied Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use 4-digit data to document the role of world shocks for intensive and extensive margin of exports. We estimate a VAR model, where the endogenous bloc comprises bilateral export margins and relative GDP, and the exogenous bloc comprises disaggregated measures of world price shocks. We find that world shocks have a significant impact on both the average export volume and export diversification. Impulse responses display considerable heterogeneity depending on the shock considered, the exchange rate regime and the great trade collapse. The evidence in the paper has remarkable consequences for trade and exchange rate policies.

show abstract

The Growth Aftermath Of Natural Disasters

Cited by 99 publications

References 16 publications

Macroeconomics of Natural Disasters: Strengths and Weaknesses of Meta‐Analysis Versus Review of Literature

Macroeconomics of Natural Disasters: Strengths and Weaknesses of Meta‐Analysis Versus Review of Literature

Untitled

Export margins and world shocks: an empirical investigation in fixed and floating regimes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About