© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Governance is understood to have considerable influence on the success of recoveries following a natural disaster. What constitutes good governance and successful recovery in these circumstances? This question is discussed in relation to two recent recovery processes. Sri Lanka has, for all intents and purposes, recovered from the tsunami that struck there and other parts of southern Asia in 2004. Christchurch, New Zealand was devastated by a sequence of earthquakes during 2010 and 2011 and recovery there is now well under way. The paper discusses the governance structures that have guided these two recoveries. While it is understood that the effects of disasters could potentially be life long and recovery from them complex, compatibility of the process and outcomes in relation to cultural norms and the critical issue of housing are the key issues discussed across the two cases.
Earthquakes are insured only with public sector involvement in high-income countries where the risk of earthquakes is perceived to be high. The proto-typical examples of this public sector involvement are the public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand (NZ). Each of these insurance programs is structured differently, and the purpose of this paper is to examine these differences using a concrete case-study, the sequence of earthquakes that occurred in the Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2011. This event turned out to have been the most heavily insured earthquake event in history. We examine what would have been the outcome of the earthquakes had the system of insurance in NZ been different. In particular, we focus on the public earthquake insurance programs in California (the California Earthquake Authority - CEA), and in Japan (Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance - JER). Overall, the aggregate cost to the public insurer in NZ was $NZ 11.1 billion in its response to the earthquakes. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received $NZ 2.5 billion and $NZ 1.4 billion from the JER and CEA, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive patterns of these different scenarios.
