Search results

Nell'ambito dell'economia dei disastri naturali ho elaborato uno studio macroeconomico e due microeconomici. A livello macro ho elaborato una meta-analisi della letteratura empirica sugli effetti dei disastri naturali in termini di costi diretti e indiretti. Ho analizzato gli effetti di caratteristiche del database,tecniche di stima, fattori di resilienza considerati e publication bias. Studi sui costi diretti che includono paesi Africani hanno 65% maggiore probabilità di riportare un risultato negativo e significativo mentre studi sui costi indiretti sembrano soffrire di publication bias. I lavori microeconometrici si focalizzano su due paesi africani. Nel primo analizzo gli effetti di un aumento della variabilità climatica sul consumo di beni alimentari delle famiglie in Uganda nel periodo 2005/06-2009/10. In media un incremento di 1% delle temperature porterebbe a una diminuzione del consumo di alimenti del 3-5% mentre le famiglie sarebbero in grado di contrastare variazioni delle precipitazioni con varie strategie. Nel secondo, con approccio multi-shock analizzo gli effetti di siccità e incremento dei prezzi di acquisto sullo stato nutrizionale di bambini in famiglie residenti in zone rurali del Senegal nel periodo 2009-2011. Singolarmente entrambi gli eventi sembrano avere effetti negativi sul livello nutrizionale. Tuttavia la concomitanza dei due eventi sembra non avere effetto sul peso dei bambini grazie a un positivo effetto reddito. ; In this work I deal with the economics of natural disasters conducting one study at the macroeconomic level and two studies at the microeconomic level. In the first I conduct a meta-analysis of the macro literature on the direct and indirect costs of natural disasters. I investigate the effects of empirical design, estimation technique, resilience factors included and publication bias. I find that direct costs studies have 65% probability to report negative and significant results if they include African countries while indirect costs studies show publication bias. Second, I conduct a microeconometric analysis of the effects of weather variability on households food consumption in Uganda in the period 2005/06-2009/10. I show that on average 1% increase in maximum temperatures would reduce food consumption by 4-5% while precipitation amount and distribution would not affect household food consumption thanks to coping strategies. Finally I consider the effects of droughts and increasing purchasing prices on weight-for-age of children in rural households in Senegal using a multishock approach and a unique dataset (2009-2011). Results of drought(increase in prices) econometric analyis show deterioration in child weight-for-age. However, concomitance of drought and increasing prices would leave child weight-for-age unaffected thanks to positive income effects.

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.